Is This "Judicial Independence"?

Behold the sort of thing that Dirty Harry Reid and his merry band of parliamentary terrorists are defending:

U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz is blasting Senator Hillary Clinton's key accuser, Peter Paul, whose allegations spurred the indictment of David Rosen, the finance chairman for Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign.

In a trial that began Tuesday in Los Angeles with Judge Matz presiding, Rosen is charged with filing false reports to the Federal Election Commission in connection with an August 2000 Hollywood gala fund-raiser that Paul produced.

While outlining instructions he intends to give the jury, Judge Matz, who was appointed by President Clinton, called Paul "a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual."

"He's a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established," the Clinton appointee added, in quotes picked up by the New York Sun.

When it came to Mrs. Clinton, however, Judge Matz was more forgiving. "This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," he insisted. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal." [my emphasis]

Does this sound like an impartial judge to you?

Does sound like a liberal one, though. And judging by Matz's comments, it almost sounds like his appointment was a pre-emptive quid pro quo.

Is it possible to launch a filibuster retroactively?