As a lawyer who has worked in the federal judiciary, it's understandable that someone outside the legal profession would have some of these views ... but they're actually pretty off base.

> judges are often paid multiples less than leading lawyers

This part is true.

> and they are not desireable jobs and so many were attracted to the power/low competence ones.

No, no, and no. Judgeships are some of the most prestigious and desirable jobs in the entire legal profession. You have to be literally nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Then you enjoy constitutionally protected life tenure. It's common to see elite lawyers, making millions as partners for large firms, leave their jobs to become federal judges. (Note that I'm talking about federal judges.)

> And also add in that with a single judge, a party/the state only needs to influence a single person.

I guess, in theory? But, in practice, this really doesn't happen. This is partially because judges highly value their independence. And their decisions are appealable, so this kind of corruption would be easily detected, or at least reversed, making it both risky and not very useful.

> The public often don't have access to all documents, transcripts and mostly what is published is the Judge's version of what the parties submissions are (i.e. one person writing history)

Nope. This is generally all public, unless there are specific confidential materials that need to be redacted. But this is unusual and disfavored.

> When a judge dismisses a case and classifies it as not refileable, always raise an eyebrow.

Eh. It's much more complicated than this. There are situations where this might raise an eyebrow -- like if the claim was recently filed and there's reason to think that it could be amended in a way that would rehabilitate it. But if it's obvious fundamentally doomed, or if it would unfairly prejudice other parties to allow it to be refiled, or for various other reasons, this can be totally legitimate.

>judges are often paid multiples less than leading lawyers and they are not desireable jobs

The first part of this is true, but the second part is laughable. Federal judgeships are highly prized and nearly impossible to get. There are only on the order of 900 Article III judges in the country and they serve for life.

>The public often don't have access to all documents, transcripts and mostly what is published is the Judge's version of what the parties submissions are

Completely false. While there can be redactions for sensitive information like trade secrets, in general everything is public record. And in particular, there is a strong presumption rooted in the first amendment and the right to a public trial to unredact anything that the court relied upon in reaching its decision.

>When a judge dismisses a case and classifies it as not refileable, always raise an eyebrow.

You get a chance to refile when the judge thinks that you could plausibly plead more facts that, when taken as true, establish your claim. When the claims fail as a matter of law, leave to amend would be futile since you can’t plead around that.