That said, you may be right about this particular situation.
This collapses separation of powers, is against the idea that "law" and "politics" are separate things, and paves the way for removing judges who don't support the views of the Party.
But i do believe that judges should be appointed by a panel of existing judges, and once appointed, can only be removed by said panel (and not the gov't).
Often, a lower court will be bound to make a particular judgment, because of precedent. It isn't unheard of for a judgment to say "We have to decide this way, but it would be really nice if this was appealed up to someone with the authority to decide the other way".