A judge is not independent of the law. That is your strawman.
He is independent, not controlled by either party in any proceeding that may occur in his court room. His rulings do not depend on either the prosecutor, or defense, or on either party in a civil suit. He may uphold arguments advanced by either party, or may write or hold an opinion that is different from either.
And yet in post 381 you say:
A judges control over his court is not by law, but rather by judicial authority to maintain his judicial independence, with a long tradition of common law behind it.{And as a self-contradiction, you say that the control stems from a tradition of common law. But either the term 'law' covers "common law" or the term "common law" is a misnomer and not really law at all; if the latter then the judge's power is actually less legitimate than a priest who depends wholly upon 'tradition'.}
He is independent, not controlled by either party in any proceeding that may occur in his court room.
Ah, but does that mean that he is free to violate the Law that is th Constitution that establishes his position? (I already gave examples.)
His rulings do not depend on either the prosecutor, or defense, or on either party in a civil suit. He may uphold arguments advanced by either party, or may write or hold an opinion that is different from either.
That is not the matter at hand; the matter at hand is the liberty to declare things contrary to the authority that establishes their own position. Logically this is impossible; so either they must fall under the strictures of the Constitutions OR their authority is derived from a place other than what has been presented (that is the constitution).
To assert that a judge's ruling, that his authority, can legitimately countermand the Constitution is to render him independent of the Constitution, yes or no?