Thanks for the compliment!

On [3], saying that a legislator has a perfect right to "seek judicial venues that give them their best chances at success" concedes my main point, I think: in the Constitution's imaginary world, judges simply interpret the law as best they can, without political bias. In that world, there's no such thing as one venue being better than another because all venues are essentially unpredictable as to how their judges will rule on any case, political or non-political. In the real world, as you say, the more favorable venues are well known and eagerly sought out by both parties.

On [4] I was using a little hyperbole, but only a little. Yes, many of the federal judges appointed by a president may issue a ruling in a case that doesn't align with the politics of that president. But the fact is, when that happens it's noticed. Almost every report on a federal ruling that involves a political issue (and of course there are very many legal cases even on the federal level that are hard to label as 'political') includes a little note about which president appointed that judge.

That allows the public to follow the game of expectations - the dogma may be putting it a little too strongly, I agree - that a judge will of course rule according to the politics of the administration that appointed him or her. When it doesn't happen, it's considered to be news - that is, it's unexpected.

First off, there is no judge who is going to be removed from the bench for the mere act of upsetting President Adjudicated Rapist 34-Time Convicted Felon Trump by ruling against him, but the Castrated Caucus and Trump administration "unelected" goon squad should definitely please waste a whole lot of time and taxpayers' dollars attempting to impeach multiple judges while prattling on and on about it on right-wingnut echo chamber propaganda media and accomplishing not much else beyond creating a tangible record of your intent to ignore the law. Boo effing hoo.

Secondly, an excellent way to avoid losing a ruling from the bench (or a jury) as a citizen is to cease and desist from committing multiple instances of fraud (particularly on paper) or incessantly flapping a big mouth connected to a small brain (on social media or while being filmed) and disparaging a person repeatedly, while an excellent way to avoid losing a ruling from a Court as a president is to cease and desist from issuing executive orders on paper that are in direct violation of federal statute and/or the rights of We the People as obviously set forth in the United States Constitution. In other words: If you keep losing repeatedly in Court as a citizen and as a POTUS, you just might be the source of your problem.

Lastly, Diaper Don will be shitting his pants (oh, wait, he already is), ranked by historians as the worst president in history (oh, wait, he already has been), drooling saliva into a bedpan, being spoon-fed Gerber pureed carrots out of a glass jar, and trying desperately to remember his own name when many of the judges he's whining about now are still making rulings from the bench against him and his deplorable spawn.

Wait, what? Don't we all accept that very many federal judges are thought to be, um, 'partisan'? Don't both parties make a huge effort to nominate new judges whose political leanings agree with those parties? Isn't that where venue shopping comes in, as you note about the conservative Texas federal district?

Sure, it seems wrong to threaten to impeach a judge who rules against the administration's positions. But why doesn't it seem wrong that both parties essentially 'judge-shop' for judges and Supreme Court justices whose legal philosophies lean towards the conservative or liberal sides?

Isn't this impeachment nonsense a logical consequence of the agreed dogma that a judge is wholly political, and his judgments should be evaluated against that kind of measure?