Part of the problem here is our court system.

They fixate on the microscopic text of the law, and ignore the fact that the law isn't some pure holy scripture that exists in a vaccuum, and one can apply like some mathematical proof in order to define something beyond doubt.

Judges, up and down the spectrum regularly find it convenient to ignore the practical effects of their rulings, and continue to "apply" the law as if it were some program they were running on cherry-picked data.

"It's a political question" or "this should be decided at the ballot box" are indeed the methods they use to avoid anything at all that smacks of doing their actual job. NO, the mere fact that its in front of you BY DEFINITION means it's your job. There needs to be a "High Standard" to throw out an agreement? Says who? That's not written anywhere in the law itself, and it's not even precedent.

It's tradition.

Moreover, if you (a judge) think something "stinks" from parties colluding or otherwise failing to adhere to even the basic precepts of the law, remind me again why that's not a "High Standard".

Proper judicial behavior is not to dictate behavior in and of itself. But is IS to reject other's attempts to manipulate the law. In this case, it's not up to the judge to say what the settlement should be, but it absolutely, 100%, all the time and twice on Sunday's, it the job of the judge to say what it should NOT BE.

Judges, fundamentally, are failing when they are put to the test in this country. They hide behind tradition and meaningless words and dress up their lack of action, all rather than actually be faced with the reality that they are not only failing to do the job they've been allocated, but that they are, by their own inaction enabling those who refuse to recognize their own (judges') legitimacy.

Modern American judiciary is as broken as the rest of the government. At this point, I have to lay it at the feet of a judiciary that is completely divorced from reality and consequences of what they do.