No. You've totally misread those words.
What they plainly state is that if the person in question is a judge, then he has henceforth lost all power to judge and no cases are to be brought before him for judgment.
The "hearing" mentioned is not a hearing held in order to judge the judge; it is rather a case brought before that judge for judgment (case brought to their hearing).
Is English not your first language?

Calm down, you're so crotchety.

...  We enact, determine, decree and define ... that if ever at any time it shall appear that ... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy ...

Repeat after me: nobody can judge of a pope.

That means that nobody is invested with the authority level official judgments against a pope. It's not possible to drag someone recognised as the Pope before the Inquisition or to have a body of bishops judge him. He can be corrected, but he cannot be judged.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (, Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’"

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’”

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

They don't separate anyone; separation is ipso facto an immediate consequence of the heresy itself.
Canon 188.4

“Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
(Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: ...4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.)

There is no doctrine, but there is a precedent that was established in the early Church, and Saint Robert Bellarmine uses this precedent as an example to back up his teaching on the Roman Pontiff.

Let's go back to your original statement where you said: "He can be judged by a body of men."

The POPE cannot be judged by any power on earth - period.  Now, if a pope were to become a manifest (public) heretic, he ceases to be pope, thus he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.  

I understand that there are theologians with differing opinions, but St. Robert's teaching stems from a precedent established during the Arian crisis.  

St. Roberts says in De Romano Pontifice:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."

He continues:
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union."

He goes on to further explain what happened to Pope Liberius during the Arian crisis:
"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act, as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus.

Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."



Seems pretty Catholic to me.  

However, does anyone really believe that the heresiarchs in Rome are going to actually do anything about their fellow heretic?  

How so?  A heretic is a heretic, no?