I don’t know how exactly they define those, but recently the editors of the New York Times used in their editorial the term “unpalatable judges.”
The term was hyperlinked, and pointed to an article on which I also commented in the past, concluding that “both President Obama and the Senate know that “due process of the law” is a sham.”
Whatever New York Times’ editors mean by “unpalatable judges,” their editorial still carries a very important lesson, namely the mainstream press’ clear acknowledgement that judges are NOT necessarily the honest, honorable, and upstanding people we are brainwashed to acknowledge them to be in an all by a knee-jerk reaction. We should stop ascribing their modus operandi and their decisions to some higher, incomprehensible to us perhaps, yet ultimately righteous wisdom, but subject them to the same careful and critical public scrutiny as other politicians are subjected to, thus putting them under full public control.
They should be fired when they act “maliciously and corruptly,” when they judge not the parties’ argument, but judges’ fraudulent substitution of parties’ argument.
There should be no room in the federal legal system for “unpalatable judges;” yet under the present “case law” created by the federal judges for the federal judges, and which allows federal judges to act arbitrarily, no other kind of federal judges than the “unpalatable” ones exists.
So insofar as the New York Times is a mainstream paper, the notion that federal “due process” is but a legalized swindle should also go mainstream, allowing us to rid ourselves of “unpalatable judges” who currently occupy every federal bench in the land.