When judges long to openly participate in politics, the solution is simple - just resign first

Of course, we know that judges rule in favor of those who donate to their election campaigns.  That's politics, right?

And, of course, we know that judges make decisions along their party lines, even though it is prohibited.  Right? 

Otherwise, there would not have been the indecent fight over which president should appoint the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Otherwise we would not have had indecent amount of money spent on lobbying in Congress of laws giving power to judges or absolving judges of liability for misconduct (like an amendment to the Civil Rights Act cutting off the provision that judges may be held liable for legal fees, if not damages).

They should apply the law, not create it in according with party lines and their personal views and whims.

Right?

But, of course, they do.

In Illinois, an appellate judge started to publicly advocate out-of-court political activities of judges - so that judges should stop being "political eununchs".

Of course, such political activities will only reveal what has always been happening in the back rooms of courthouses anyway.

But, when a judge becomes a judge, he or she volunteers to become a "political eununch", to leave the judge's party-related beliefs and preferences behind.

And, if judges think that they have lost too much by shedding their right to publicly engage in political discourse on the topics they may be discussing in court - there is an easy way to solve that problem.

Just resign.