234

In addition, we should pay attention to how the word "judge" apply differently on different sides here. Even for a litigant who himself seek a government court, the situation is not like that of empowering a person by choosing him to be a judge and then if you want to sue him later an objection may arise about suing him for his opinion and what you yourself empowered him to do. No, government judges to any litigant are only judges in the sense that they have the power to judge things. It is the government who chose them. So the actions of those judges are the responsibility of either of those parties or both but not the litigant.

Why should litigant's suing to a government judge (even for the side who chose to go to the court) be different from suing a police man for a wrong he did for example (regardless of whether that is being done by suing the government directly or through the police man, I don't know that yet)? Because a government judge has the authority to make a wrong? Since, the litigant did not empower that judge with that authority, to that litigant the government judge is just an applier of authority like a police man.

However, if that argument gets used for even mistakes committed despite good faith by judges then the argument currently used for the purpose of exaggerating immunity of judges would start to be more reasonable. So, it seems that those arguing for immunity of judges are who may need to start from a defensive position, instead.