Corona asks women judges to continue fight vs ‘one man rule’

I regret this follow up post on this issue but the more I read Corona’s speech, the more I’m convinced that he’s not only a user but also has a peculiar way of interpreting facts depending on whether it would suit his personal interest or not.  As a user, he wouldn’t hesitate to drag along a 70 year old victim of a stroke to suit his purpose neither would he hesitate to involve the memory of a very fine lady justice to further spread his lies.  As a peculiar interpreter of facts, he has this ambivalent way of looking at the glass, if it favourably suits his purpose, he looks at it as half-full, it not he interprets it as half empty. 
 
His egocentrism makes him see a “one-man” rule when there’s none but ignores an unbridled exercise of power by a woman he bound himself to with a vinculum personam he cannot now extricate himself from.
 
He claims to be waging a fight to shield the judiciary from outside influence and grave abuse of discretion by any agency of the government, but he ignore’s his excessive abuse of discretionary powers over the resources of the Court the latest of which is the reported used of Court’s vehicle to transport his own witness.  The glass is half-full if the exercise of discretion favours him and it is half-empty if it restricts him.  He doesn’t want to share with anyone his dictatorial powers over the Court.
 
No other entity of the government should interfere with him in settlement of cases among or between private interest groups for only him could order the review and reversal of finally adjudicated cases such as the Palea case.  Him and only him has that dictatorial power over the Court.  So the executive and the legislative branch better leave him alone or there will be a breach of the independence of the judiciary.
 
Corona is absolutely correct that the Supreme Court should be insulated from politics except when he politicize it himself. 
 
“The Executive and Legislative departments are constitutionally mandated within certain authorities and privileges guaranteeing their balance of power.”  Now this is where the half-full-half-empty interpretation of the glass becomes problematic.  Is Corona insinuating an interpretation that he or the courts are superior to the other two branches in view of the foregoing sentence?

Folks, as we all have now learned, probity is one of the essentials of being a jurist, if not the most essential.  We also have now seen that Corona is not at par when it comes to this requirement.  To allow Corona to continue functioning as the chief magistrate would be a mockery of justice for which future generations would not forgive us.  He has to go!