Why is he an “honest judge”?
His ruling was based on whether or not the payments would be worthwhile or not. THAT IS A LEGISLATIVE ISSUE.
He did not rule that the payments could not be restored because they violated the Appropriations clause of the Constitution, which is the ONLY issue that is of any relevance to an Article III judge.
I consider him an honest judge precisely because he ruled based on the law, not politics, as some of the others have been doing.