The law doesn’t need fixing, dummy! The problem lies with some legal minds in high places.
1. First, the masthead of the post itself reeks of contempt. It is a direct strike on the capabilities of certain members of the bench whose verdicts have irked the writer. That anger has fueled the thrust of the piece for it implies that the judiciary is manned by incompetent judges who do not have the ability to interpret the law in a judicious manner. The net effect is to sow in the minds of the public that they are being served by an incompetent judiciary, a move calculated to erode the public's confidence in the administration of justice. In simple language, the writer is fomenting public mistrust in the administartion of justice by scandalising the bench with that masthead.
References to case law will bear out the fact that the writer has indeed committed contempt:
a. One kind of contempt is scandalising the Court itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this Court, in abusing parties who are concerned in causes here. There may be also a contempt of this Court, in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard.
: Hardwicke L.C in St. James Evening Post (1742) 2 At. K. 469, p. 471.
b. Contempt of court means an interference with the administration of justice and it is unfortunate that the offence should continue to be known by a name which suggests to the modern mind that its essence is a supposed affront to the dignity of the court.
Cross in Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers,  2 All ER 54.
authority or something calculated to obstruct or to interfere with the due course of
justice or the lawful process of the courts.
Revert: The gumption of hypocrites who prattle about constitutional probity and the rule of law. Better off for these charlatans be exposed and be banished to work in some fisherman's wharf!
TO BE CONTINUED..............................