by Jonathan Turley
The politicians, the press, and pundits are in a feeding frenzy around Judge Aileen Cannon, the federal judge presiding in the Florida case against former President Donald Trump.
There is a torrent of hit pieces and petty attacks on virtually every media platform.
What is impressive is the complete lack of self-awareness over the hypocrisy of these attacks.
Just a few weeks ago, the New York Times and other media outlets went into vapors when anyone uttered criticism of Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan in another Trump case.
In 2020, Judge Cannon was confirmed in a bipartisan vote, with the support of liberals such as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.).
Now she is being denounced as a “partisan, petty prima donna, “wacko, crazy, loony, nutty, ridiculous, and outlandish,” and a “right-wing hack.” From the descriptions in the Washington Post, New York Times and virtually every mainstream media outlet, you would think that Cannon was a freak in the courtroom, raving uncontrollably at any passerby.
These critics often stress that she is an appointee of Trump, even though many Trump appointees have ruled against the former president on 2020 election issues. And these same figures denounced Trump for attacking the perceived political bias of Democratic nominees in some of his cases.
Cannon was randomly selected, as opposed to Merchan, who was hand-picked to try Trump even though he is a political donor to President Joe Biden and has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative.
Yet these same figures denounced those who questioned Merchan’s refusal to step aside or criticized his rulings against Trump throughout the trial.
In reality, the “loose Cannon” spin is utterly disconnected with her actual rulings.
She has ruled for and against both parties on major issues. That includes the rejection of major motions filed by the Trump team and most recently challenged Trump counsel on their claims that the Special Counsel is part of “a shadow government.”
Notably, when Cannon recently rejected the main motion for dismissal by the Trump team, the Washington Post buried that fact in an article titled “Judge Cannon Strikes Paragraph in Trump Classified Document Indictment.” The suggestion was that the striking of a single paragraph was more newsworthy than insisting that Trump go to trial on these counts. (Also buried in the article is a recognition that the removal of this one paragraph “does not have a substantive effect on the case.”)
Most recently, the left expressed nothing short of horror that Judge Cannon allowed the Trump team to argue a point of constitutional law in a hearing.
Scholars and former prosecutors (including former attorneys general) have argued that the appointment of special counsels like Smith are unconstitutional.
This is a novel and intriguing constitutional objection that is based on the text of the Constitution, which requires that high-ranking executive officers like U.S. Attorneys be appointed under statute or nominated by the president (and confirmed by the Senate).
Yet after the expiration of the Independent Counsel Act in Jun 1999, the Justice Department asserts the right to take any private citizen like Smith and effectively give him greater authority than a U.S. Attorney.
This glaring inconsistency has led to a number of challenges. Thus far, they have been unsuccessful, but none have gone to the Supreme Court. Cannon wanted to hear oral arguments before ruling on the question.
That decision has sent the politicians and reporters into another frenzy of faux outrage and indignation.
MSNBC legal analyst and NYU law professor Melissa Murray went on with host Chris Hayes to tell Judge Cannon to “stay in her lane” and mock her consideration of constitutional claim:
“Girl, stay in your lane. Stay. In. Your. Lane. So, yes, not only has the issue of whether the special counsel comports with the structures of constitutional law, that’s been settled. That’s been addressed in multiple courts. Settled. We don’t have to rehash that … If this were an actual issue it would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, not by a district court judge in Fort Pierce, Florida.”
It is a baffling lecture. Cannon is precisely in her lane in hearing a claim without controlling authority. The fact is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue and many lawyers have objected to the summary treatment given the claim by other courts. The point of creating a record is to allow a full review that could well end up at the Supreme Court.
Who isn’t staying in their lane? Cannon’s colleagues.
The M.S. Media Bottom Feeders prefer UN/Globalists Judges like Merchan and his ilk
Hmmm… “stay in your lane”. A state prosecutor prosecuting a federal election law is staying in the proper lane but a federal judge ruling is the prosecutor even has the authority to prosecute the case (“standing” anyone?) is not? Bullshit, but then again, that is all the left offers.
The left’s idea of a court is Judge Freisler’s People’s Court, where the State gives the orders and the bench carries them out. The left loved the Supreme Court when it makes rulings such as abortion and infanticide is a “right” because of the 4th Amendment right to privacy. It doesn’t get any thinner than that. But, when the Court is dominated by Justices that actually consider the Constitution as the guide (rather than a weak excuse) to adjudicate cases, the left wants it destroyed. Laws, justice, rules and the Constitution are all considered impediments to the goals of the left except when they can be weaponized. EVERY TIME a judge rules against the wishes of the left, it makes them automatically “illegitimate”.