Judicial immunity without judicial discipline?

Absolute judicial immunity, even for malicious and corrupt acts, was generously and unconstitutionally given by judges to judges, on the pretext that judges are allegedly amenable to judicial discipline.

As we know, judges are hardly amenable to judicial discipline, since the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, understaffed and permeated by conflicts of interest, operates rather as a glorified shredder of complaints against judges than any effective means of control of rampant misconduct in the New York State judiciary.

Yet, for sitting judges judicial discipline is at least THEORETICALLY available.

Yet, there are categories of judges:

Judicial Hearing Officers;
Referees;

who "technically" are "former" judges and are not amenable to judicial discipline.

Moreover, courts have stretched absolute judicial immunity to cover personnel of courts of court-appointed experts, investigators and attorneys who are not amenable to judicial discipline, and are yet covered by immunity, in contradiction with the principles upon which immunity were initially given by the judiciary to the judiciary.

It appears more and more that any declared restrictions on judicial immunity were given "with a wink and a nod" and with no real intent by the judiciary to apply those restrictions to their brethren and sisters.

Judicial immunity, the way it is applied, therefore, is a dangerous concept corroding this country's democratic principles and foundations, and it should be abolished legislatively and prohibited at the level of state Constitutions.