When a firebrand liberal judge makes pronouncements about those he or she sees as being to the right of him, the usual suspects will laud him or her as a ‘visionary’ and a ‘person of courage’. THey’ll have no problem with their personal feelings becoming entangled with the law. But watch the pants get wet when some judge expresses tendencies toward the right, such as this article from the St Louis Dispatch: 
A liberal-bashing book by a veteran St. Louis judge is to become available publicly this week, but it is already causing a stir in political and legal circles â€” and prompting some to say it could cost him his job.
Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.’s book, “The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault,” has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.
The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term “femifascists” and is titled “The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism,” have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.
Other judges and lawyers have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit. One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book “professional suicide.”
An example of that bedwetting:….(Beyond what the writeup from the news staff of the St Louis dispatch… will they ever use the term ‘Conservative Bashing”?) comes in the form of a mindless wail from Kevin Drum :
In a disclaimer at the end of the book, Dierker writes that the views in the book are “personal, and should not be construed as any indication of how I would rule on any case coming before me.” No, of course not. Just because he spent nearly 300 pages explaining his beliefs that liberals and “femifascists” are wrong about everything is certainly no reason to question his judicial independence, temperament, and impartiality, right?
Let’s recall the words of John Kerry, Shall we? From a write up, by all people, Cass Sunstein , we get:
During their recent confirmation hearings, John Roberts and Samuel Alito insisted on the importance of “following the law,” and of distinguishing between a judge’s personal moral commitments and his views about the Constitution. In drawing this distinction, both nominees recapitulated a discussion in the presidential debates of 2004, when the candidates were asked what kind of person they would appoint to the Supreme Court. President Bush replied, “I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.” Senator Kerry agreed. He said, “I don’t believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don’t believe we need a good liberal judge. … I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.”
So, Kevin, how is it that Roberts, Alito and, heck, even Sunstein agree.. and correctly… with Kerry, that the concept of judges being able to seperate their own belief structure from the law, is a workable one, how is it the whole thing seems to have gotten right past YOU?