I've seldom seen such a clear-cut example of the ad hominem fallacy. Readers take note: this is what the term really refers to, not just insults.
You are FUNNY! Even when you try to argue logically, you pick the WRONG FALLACY to accuse me of! :) The correct Fallacy to accuse me of is the "fallacy of false authority." What I said was a clear cut example of that. In this case, the Ad hominem aspect of it was directed at Jimmy Carter. Are you now concerned with defending him?
Jimmy Carter was the worst President in History till the current one. He was an idiot. If he made a correct decision it was an accident. He was virtually the perfect "reverse barometer." If you did the exact opposite of everything he thought was right, you couldn't have done worse than he did. In any case, it is not an Ad hominem when it's true. :)
"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument." You attacked the judge's cirumstances ("a Carter appointee") rather than addressing the statement. Perfect example. Sorry.