judge shopping by the Dimms

I have been following the Dimm’s process of judge-shopping to find judges biased against President Trump’s executive orders. The Dimms file a motion in a lower-level federal court that the Dimms know is biased against the executive order. The biased federal court prevents the executive order from being implemented until the lower level court decision is reversed by a higher court with the final act being to appeal to the Supreme Court, if necessary. It is obvious that the Dimms only objective is obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. I have a couple of questions.

The first question is as follows: Since the law states clearly that in immigration matters, the President has the authority to limit access into the U.S. for anyone, then how can these lower level judges claim to have any authority to pass judgement on a presidential executive order regarding immigration? Where in the constitution does it say that lower level judges have been granted more power than the President? Where in the law does it say that anyone has the right to usurp the President’s authority in an area where he has been granted final authority by statute?

That then leads into my second question. When judges make decisions that are not based on the law, those judges are acting in a corrupt manner, which is totally counter to what they were expressly assigned to do. Judges are not placed in authority to make capricious or arbitrary decisions. Their job is to determine what the law says is the proper decision regarding the matter be decided. According to Article III of the constitution, a judge’s tenure may be terminated if the judge does not exercise “good behavior”. It is clearly obvious that they intended that judges should be held accountable and measured by “behavior standards”. I think that there must be a process in place that will ensure that any judge that does not exhibit “good behavior” may have his tenure terminated. One of the criteria defining “good behavior” should be that the judge’s decisions should be in keeping with current written law. Perhaps a position of Judicial Inspector General reporting to both congress and the DOJ should be instituted to handle investigations of “bad behavior” of judges. It is quite obvious that the process of “judge shopping” to file lawsuits, and motions needs to be curtailed. Also, a judicial branch where the law changes every time a different judge is involved is not indicative of the actual existence of meaningful government by law. Instead it is indicative of government by junior level dictators who are issuing decisions based on their own arbitrary biases.