In other words, federal courts which "self-regulate" and review complaints against their colleagues, cannot be disciplined for anything they did during a judicial proceedings, even if their decision in a case was corrupt or if the judge in question had a personal interest in deciding the case, had to recuse, but didn't, causing severe detriment to the complainant.
At the very same time, federal judges continue to claim for themselves their self-gift of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt on the bench, which they claim is justified because - guess what - allegedly judicial discipline for acts on the bench is available.
28 USC 352(b)(I)(A)(ii) clearly indicates that it is not so.
Yet, any cloud has a silver lining.
The silver lining that appears here is - Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act is clear evidence that the judge-created doctrine of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench is illegal and unconstitutional legislating from the bench.
If the U.S. Congress prohibited discipline of judges for acts on the bench, absolute judicial immunity cannot be "read into" or "imputed" into the Bivens actions, federal counterparts of a civil rights action against a state official.
The U.S. Congress, which is supposedly not an insane group of people, cannot be "deemed" to have "implied" something in 42 U.S.C. 1983 that it absolutely ruled out by enacting Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 USC 352(b)(I)(A)(ii), and that argument is valid to invalidate the concept of absolute judicial immunity for both federal and state judges, because the rationale is the same.
The U.S. Congress could not possibly "mean"
- when enacting 42 U.S.C. 1983 that "any person" against whom a civil rights action can be brought is "any person", but judges because judges are entitled to absolute immunity for actions on the bench in view of availability of discipline for misconduct;
- while at the same time enacting 28 USC 352(b)(I)(A)(ii) where it clearly prohibited discipline against judges for their acts on the bench.
Currently, "almost all" complaints about federal judges under 28 U.S.C. 352 are dismissed - according to the frank admission of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit:
Situation with dismissals of practically all judicial complaints by the "brethren" of the subjects of those complaints is reportedly the same in other federal circuits, and that is according to the federal courts' own official statistics.
At the same time, all lawsuits against federal judges are dismissed on grounds of absolute judicial immunity, without reaching the merits and often with sanctions against civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys.
Yet, in view of the above discrepancy between what courts read into 42 U.S.C. 1983 as Congressional intent to provide an exception of absolute judicial immunity because judicial discipline is available, and Congressional enactment of Judicial Misconduct and Disability act that does not allow such discipline for acts on the bench, a challenge can be properly made that the claim of absolute judicial immunity is unlawful because of this discrepancy.
State and federal courts routinely punish for frivolous conduct parties and attorneys for maintaining inconsistent or diametrically opposite positions in litigation.
Yet, position of judges as to their own self-interest, the issue of absolute judicial immunity, appears to be nothing but frivolous, because it necessarily requires to accuse generations of U.S. Congressmen of insanity in enacting two diametrically opposite statutes, one that "impliedly" provides for judicial discipline for acts on the bench, and the other, which prohibits it.
Yet, of course, "freedom is not free", and the entrenched judiciary will not let go of its baby, the absolute judicial immunity, without a bitter fight against challengers.
We will see how the illegal "legal doctrine" of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench will develop in our Internet age.
Stay tuned for further coverage of the issue.