I can't see where that distinction can be made. You're still advocating judges exercise their personal viewpoints by interfering with the legal process. Isn't the very fact that the legal age of consent varies from country to country a good example? A person performing an act upon an individual in one country is considered an abuser whereas the same person performing the same act on the same person in another is perfectly within their rights. So it's an opinion, really - morally grounded in both countries but still, an opinion in each. A judge brought from one country to the other to work might retain the opinions of his/her home state and hence might actually disagree with the letter of the law in their new home but would be obliged to still exercise the law as it is defined. Choosing which way to sway because of a personal opinion is not an option. Recusing themselves from the case might be a more appropriate course of action - although in the case of the US it would probably just result in the appointment of a different judge who might go ahead and prosecute. Quiet (actually silent) protests are not going to get you anywhere when the situation you're attempting to protest against has tens of thousands of supporters who are willing to go out on the streets and drag support out of bystanders on the fence through intimidation and lies.

Conflict is not the way either, but it looks like the lines of battle are being drawn by people who have cast aside both the willingness and the ability to listen.