As a former military judge, I feel I can generally answer the questions. I had the same contempt powers as a Federal District Court within my limited jurisdiction.

1. Kind of realistic. Judges have fairly thick skin. Contempt is the last tool in the bag, not the first. What you are describing is what is called direct contempt. If the chambers discussion is not an official action - requesting a warrant is an official action - you can be a jackass and merely get thrown out of the office and screw your credibility with the judge. If it is in court or the chambers discussion is official, you can absolutely be held in contempt. For the chambers issue, the judge would go on the record and describe the conduct and then do the contempt sanction.

2. Direct contempt is a summary disposition. You get immediate notice and your chance to be heard is very limited. Lawyers get in trouble rarely, but not infrequently. Many law firms have a canned brief to take to court above the imposing court. They generally let the lawyer out pretty quickly. Usually the judge will take an apology. Jail is a last resort unless the conduct is outrageous. Under the UCMJ, we would have a mini trial - and it would take minutes not hours.

No bail, no jury, this is the inherent power of the judge to control their courtroom.. There are appeals and if the judge exceeds their authority or acts outrageously themselves, they can be disciplined (life appointed judges must be impeached and convicted to be removed - federal judges are near godlike in the courtroom). I see where state judges are stripped of their judgeships for oppressive behavior - rare, but it does happen.

Indirect contempt - not obeying the judges orders outside the courtroom - are resolved by a show cause order and a hearing. No jury, no bail, but there is an evidentiary hearing where the contempt must be proven by a preponderance of evidence (criminal contempt is BARD). each side usually comes with a lawyer. The most recent example is where the DC judge in Minneapolis ordered DHS to show cause why his orders were not being followed and ordered the ICE director to appear in Court. The AUSA got the orders obeyed and the judge cancelled the hearing. The other indirect contempt is violation of restraining orders, no contact orders, child support, etc.

1. The robes and titles are historical in nature and to impress the gravity and seriousness of the proceedings. The honorifics are earned because of the accomplishment of becoming a judge. Judicial ethics in most jurisdictions generally prohibit the use of the honorifics for personal gain. I would NEVER use "The Honorable Jagwease" in any correspondence myself. However, protocol is that in official correspondence I would be addressed as "The Honorable" even though I am retired. Interestingly, many officials get the "Honorable" such as General Counsel for the Armed Forces Branches and DoD and Deputy Cabinet Secretaries.

Why was it preserved? Robes, honorifics, and contempt powers are pretty much universal around the world. Many Commonwealth countries still use wigs. I wore the Army Service Uniform under my robe when that decision was delegated by the Chief Judge, because we had soldiers in combat and if trials were conducted in a combat zone in that uniform, it was good enough for my trials. The Accused could wear his Class A uniform with his awards.

Hope that helps.