When Justices obstruct the law and legal proceedings by not adhering to the legal standards of review, who will hold them accountable?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . § Section 702. Right of review -A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein (1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or , (2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought How is justice being served when the standard of review is not adhered to? When there is abuse of discretion? 5 U.S. Code §?706. Scope of review (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; A standard of review used by appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts. The appellate court will typically find that the decision was an abuse of discretion if the 15 discretionary decision was made in plain error. The lower court committed a clear error of judgment in reaching its decision. The record ‘ contains no evidence to support its decision. The court acted in a manifestly arbitrary, unfair, and unreasonable manner. It undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself. The lower court's decision was irrational and based on a clear misapplication of the law. This is an Obstruction of Justice; 18 U.S. Code §?1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. "Interference with the orderly administration of law and justice” and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521." The Question is: When Justices obstruct the law and legal proceedings by not adhering tothe | legal standards of review, who will hold them accountable? How high does the corruption go? ; To apply this to the law, what is justice in these United States of America? if the decision is left in the hands of the courts, then why are the courts not held accountable for incorrect legal proceedings based on arbitrary decisions that are not based on the findings of fact or law? : 16