ed that the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance does not have the *758 authority to impose sanctions upon a judge, only to make recommendations. The Mississippi Supreme Court has the sole responsibility and authority to impose the sanctions. If such responsibility and authority were dependent upon the recommendations of the Commission, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, and statutes and rules enacted pursuant thereto would be meaningless and would accomplish nothing in working toward proper judicial performance. We hold that, having acquired jurisdiction, the Mississippi Supreme Court has full jurisdiction to increase or diminish sanctions based upon its review of the record made before the Commission.
Id. at 560. Hence, we may exercise our independent judgment and remove a judge from office even if the Commission recommends lesser sanctions.
¶ 21. However, in the instant case, the Commission has made no recommendation for sanctions whatsoever.[7] It seeks only to have DeLaughter's interim suspension dismissed  which is no sanction at all  pursuant to an agreement which we already have held the Commission was without constitutional authority to enter into. Hence, we are not empowered to remove DeLaughter, on our own motion, at this time.
¶ 22. The majority also cites Mississippi Code Section 25-5-1 for the proposition that this Court may remove any public officer convicted of a felony in this State. See Maj. Op. at ¶ 5 (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 25-5-1 (Rev.2006)). However, Section 25-5-1 confers no such power upon this Court under the circumstances of this case. Specifically, Section 25-5-1 provides that:
If any public officer, state, district, county or municipal, shall be convicted or enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in any court of this state or any other state or in any federal court of any felony other than manslaughter or any violation of the United States Internal Revenue Code, of corruption in office or peculation therein, or of gambling or dealing