What bothers me is people who blame the judge for a decision they don't agree with for whatever bias or rationale.
Judges are supposed to be umpires, calling balls and strikes. They decide the outcome based on the facts presented by both sides of a case and the law.
If a case goes against what another lawyer (first video in thread) thinks should have been the decision, and doesn't offer a legal analysis of why the judge was wrong, it's simply the opinion of an individual who may have biases against that judge.
I WANT a judge who listens to both sides and decides the case on the FACTS presented, not on the high altitude stats or decisions.
If she ruled in favor of the gov't most of the time, maybe it's because the law or the lawyers' presentations were more in favor of the gov't? It's not the judge's place to keep score, deciding a case against the gov't out of some sense of "balance".
Be careful when someone characterizes a case for you and doesn't tell you WHY her decision was wrong. She sat on an appellate court. That means a lower court already decided the case, and the losing party appealed the decision. If she decided the lower court was correct, which happens to be in favor of the gov't, that sort of validates the decision since TWO courts came to the same conclusion given the facts in evidence and arguments on record.
If I ever go to court for a crime, I want the judge to be openminded and focused on weighing the case on its merits and not according to their political or moral leanings. If I lose, it's because my case was weaker than the other's -- which could very well be because I was in violation of the law.