> Judges can't just decide to have random people sterilized
They can if someone petitions for it.
> The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized
And I can petition to have you sterilized. If the judge accepts it you will not be able to hold him responsible. He does not need to listen to you nor do you need to know about it.
> The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they make when acting in their official capacity as judges.
Meanwhile doctors, drivers, etc can be held personally liable for mistakes they make while working.
So in your opinion, if I petition a court for permission to kill my neighbor "because he's really annoying", and for some reason the judge says yes, he won't be held liable? Because I disagree. Judges do not have the ability to blanket "bless" actions so long as someone petitions for it. You have to look at the specifics of the case.
As long as it survives appeal, judges can basically rule whatever they want. Plenty of crazy rulings have gotten through the courts. Remember that time they ruled it was okay to toss all the Japanese people in internment camps?
That wasn't so crazy back in the time; it had many time-honoured precedents, ranging from the Boer war internment camps to the SWA internment camps, to the ones in WWI in occupied France and Belgium, and, of course, the make-belief internment camps for Armenians in Turkey; a really good book that explains how the idea that interning a whole ethnicity was a good idea sprang up is "Absolute Destruction" by Isabell V. Hull.
(Note: the US and what it did and does, does not exist in isolation; these outside-US developments are germane. Also, it was evil and cruel and contra-productive, but that wasn't a problem, because since it was what you would do, in case of war, it had to be done.)
Judges could also order that "fugitive" slaves could be returned to their "owners", or that people convicted of treason could be vivisected, if you go far enough back in time. I'm not sure what point is being argued here. If you want to make judges personally liable for following the law and/or for making mistakes, why would anyone become a judge?
If you make soldiers personally liable for following orders then why would anyone want to be a soldier? I'm not saying this to be funny. Most other professions can be held responsible for doing their job, but doing it very poorly that causes harm to others. But somehow judges are exempt.
They're not liable for following lawful orders, though, even if the results are horrific and they personally disagree with the order. That's why no one gets charged when a drone strike blows up a wedding and kills 23 children.
They can if someone petitions for it.
> The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized
And I can petition to have you sterilized. If the judge accepts it you will not be able to hold him responsible. He does not need to listen to you nor do you need to know about it.
> The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they make when acting in their official capacity as judges.
Meanwhile doctors, drivers, etc can be held personally liable for mistakes they make while working.