It’s difficult to have much faith in the judicial system when individual judges appear to be gullible consumers of fake news, swallowing media accounts of events that have been widely questioned and, at least in some cases, debunked completely.

Just how gullible and uninformed even top jurists can be was seen in January at the U.S. Supreme Court, during oral arguments over the government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate affecting nearly 100 million workers.

During the arguments, the justices revealed an ignorance of the basic facts surrounding COVID that shocked onlookers – and showed that many relied upon unreliable media sources for their information.

"We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor blurted out at one point. “We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators.”

In fact, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the seven-day average of pediatric hospitalizations for COVID at that time was only around 3,700.

That a Supreme Court justice could be so uninformed – involving an issue that affected 100 million workers and the entire U.S. economy – highlighted for many the danger of Big Tech control of information and the media.

The issue of judicial ignorance and outright bias arose again this week with another boomer federal judge, U.S District Judge David Carter, who issued a finding that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not" committed felony obstruction in the effort to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

What is troubling about Judge Carter’s 44-page opinion is not his analysis of the law. He claims that Trump may have violated provisions of the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which could well be true.

Rather, it is his tendentious summary of the facts surrounding the 2020 election and January 6 protest at the Capitol that is shocking.

Not only does this “tough-minded” judge present a picture of the 2020 election that reads like a press release from Nancy Pelosi’s office, but he presents as facts things we now know are simply not true.

For example, in his opinion Judge Carter cites the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s declaration, one week after the election, that “[t]he November 3rd election [was] the most secure in American history” and found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

Yet just days after CISA’s statement was issued on November 12, election officials in Georgia reported that, during a mandatory recount, they had discovered 5,900 votes that had been lost and were initially not reported – exactly the opposite of what the CISA claimed. A day later, they found 2,800 moreuncounted ballots. This narrowed Biden’s lead in the state from 14,112 votes to 12,781 as most of those extra votes went to Trump.

What’s more, Judge Carter, in his summary of the facts surrounding the 2020 election, utterly ignores the issues raised by the State of Texas in its suit before the U.S. Supreme Court that battleground states “unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes” and “flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody….”

Judge Carter’s characterization of the January 6 protest at the Capitol, which he calls an “attack,” is equally uninformed and even more partisan.

He calls the protest at the capital a “rampage” that “left multiple people dead” without seeming to know that of the five people who died, all were Trump supporters. One was a woman veteran shot by an overzealous Capitol Hill policeman, and the rest all died of natural causes, such as stroke or heart attack.

At the end of his opinion, Judge Carter even repeats the widely-debunked claim that the January 6 protests “led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers.” He doesn’t seem to know, or doesn’t care, that the claim that Officer Brian Sicknick died from being struck by a fire extinguisher thrown by protesters has been proven false and deliberate fake news, and that the four other officers often cited by the media, Jeffrey Smith, Howard Liebengood, Gunther Hashida and Kyle DeFreytag, all died by suicide many months after January 6 and not in the line of duty.

This is ignorance of basic facts that is on the same level of Justice Sotomayor’s 100,000 COVID babies.

Judge Carter’s opinion, like Sotomayor’s error-ridden declarations over COVID, only strengthens the view of many ordinary Americans that the judicial system is corrupt beyond repair, and nakedly partisan.

Judge Carter was appointed by Bill Clinton, the husband of Donald Trump’s arch-rival Hillary Clinton, who is the architect of one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public – the “Russia Hoax” – aided and abetted by the federal judicial system and the U.S. Department of Justice. It is thus not surprising, but still disheartening, that a federal judge would use his office to further Hillary’s agenda of demonizing Trump in an attempt to prohibit another run for elected office.

The judge may well be correct that Trump’s legal theory was wrong that Vice President Mike Pence could have rejected the votes of the electors and demanded legislative investigations of the questionable ballots in some states.

But reading the judge’s media-tainted and at points outright false summary of the facts, you can only conclude that Judge Carter is yet another partisan contributing to the cause of stopping Donald Trump, no matter the cost.

Robert J. Hutchinson writes about the intersection of politics and ideas. He latest book is What Really Happened: The Death of Hitler.