Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Judge Aileen Cannon, randomly assigned to preside over the prosecution of Donald Trump in the classified document case, is coming under intensely critical scrutiny from the left. Some point out that she was appointed to her position by Trump. Others highlight her actions last year, when she disrupted the documents investigation by issuing rulings favorable to him when he challenged the FBI's search of his Mar-a-Lago resort — before an appeals court ruled that she never had legal authority to intervene.
Critics have demanded her recusal because they fear that she will potentially sabotage the prosecution by giving Trump unwarranted delays and favorable evidentiary rulings.
These concerns are exaggerated and only contribute to the dangerous view that the federal judiciary is politicized. The recent history of the courts at many levels provides evidence that even someone like Trump gets no special favors — and the outcome of the Mar-a-Lago case will appear more legitimate in such a system.
Besides, Judge Cannon is a qualified jurist and deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. She is a magna cum laude graduate of a top-tier law school, the University of Michigan. She clerked for a federal appeals court judge, then worked for a well-respected law firm before serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida.
That she was appointed by Trump does not necessarily make her biased. Presidents appoint all federal judges, but the actual selection process is much more complex and much more removed from the president than many people realize. After a formalized search process, most federal judges are recommended for appointment by their U.S. senators, in this case Marco Rubio of Florida, after recommendations from an advisory commission.
There is no known evidence that suggests Cannon had any personal connection with Trump or worked on any of his campaigns, circumstances that would be reason for a recusal. The American Bar Association rated her "qualified" by a substantial majority and "well qualified" by a minority. In the Senate, her judgeship was confirmed by a vote of 56-21, a healthy bipartisan majority.