The partisan behavior of Clinton and Obama judges has become a serious problem. They’ve normalized blatant violations of the legal rights of defendants, including attorney-client privilege, in their campaign to destroy President Trump. And they’ve illegally and unconstitutionally blocked nearly every Trump administration move that they disagreed with for partisan political reasons.

But they’ve pretended that they were doing this for legal reasons.

But here’s a Clinton judge throwing a public tantrum.

A federal judge on Wednesday assailed President Donald Trump for his repeated attacks on various legal decisions and judges, stating the President’s bombastic criticism is feeding into a “destructive narrative.”

US District Court Judge Paul Friedman said Trump’s personal attacks on judges are helping “undermine faith in the rule of law itself.”

“This obviously is a trend we’re seeing throughout public life, but, I would suggest, the stakes in attacking the judiciary have graver implications,” Friedman said in remarks as part of a lecture series at a federal courthouse in Washington. “And regrettably, the current President of the United States is feeding right into this destructive narrative.”

He added, “We are witnessing a chief executive who criticizes virtually every judicial decision that doesn’t go his way and denigrates judges who rule against him, sometimes in very personal terms. He seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a co-equal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions.”Friedman acknowledged that Trump “is not the first president to be frustrated with judicial outcomes,” but posited “what we are witnessing today and over the last few years is markedly different.”

“The reality is that when the Trump administration has lost cases in the courts, it is not because of Clinton or Obama judges, but because of judges who are trying to follow the law and the Constitution,” he said.

The Clinton judge’s behavior provides the best counterargument.

Federal judges are not supposed to launch personal attacks against the President of the United States. But they’re also not supposed to do things like order that a president abide by an executive order put into place by his successor, which they somehow claim has become the law. Federal judges upholding Obama’s executive order illegal alien amnesty is not an example of Obama and Clinton judges following the law and the constitution. They routinely denigrate and disregard both.

It’s an example of them upholding the partisan power of their faction while violating their oath of office.

The Clinton judge’s rant is a clear example of the reality that this is a partisan issue. It’s not about the law. It’s about political tribalism infecting the judiciary.