When is a judge “brilliant” and “impeccably fair,” and when is a judge a “wacko,” “prima donna,” “right-wing hack”? When is questioning a judge’s decision a threat “to our entire system of government,” and when is it an acceptable effort to “uphold the Constitution”?
If you are a Democrat, the answer is easy: judges appointed by Democrats to hear charges against Republicans are brilliant and fair and any criticism they receive is an attack on democracy. If it is a Republican judge presiding over a case, all attacks are fair game, be they personal or professional in nature.
This double standard has been especially stark when looking at the disparate treatments of Judge Aileen Cannon in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial and Judge Juan Merchan in the former president’s hush money trial.
Cannon, who was selected randomly to hear special counsel Jack Smith’s case on obstruction of justice and classified documents, has been attacked constantly by Democrats and has received constant negative coverage in the media. The goal of the charges was always to get a guilty verdict before Election Day. Punishing Trump after November serves no political purpose.
It is not Cannon’s fault that charges brought by Smith under the Classified Information Procedures Act require special security procedures which have slowed the case and raised unique issues which required extensive litigation. Smith could have just brought a simple obstruction of justice charge against Trump, but that wouldn’t have delivered the headlines Democrats are looking for.
Cannon has made tough decisions for and against Trump, including crucially not to dismiss the indictment entirely. It is also not her fault that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought politically motivated business records charges. That trial took Trump away from her courtroom for six months. It is not a delay she created. Despite Cannon’s solid and reasonable work, she has been vilified in the press as “partisan,” “loony,” inexperienced, and hostile.
Contrast this treatment with that of Merchan. Unlike Cannon, Merchan was chosen not at random but picked by New York City’s administrative judge to hear Trump’s case. He was chosen not because he would be impartial, but because he had heard cases involving Trump before, had a consistent record of ruling against Trump, and had inflicted the maximum allowable punishment on Trump and his organizations whenever possible.
That was known before it came to light that Merchan donated money, albeit a small amount, to President Joe Biden’s campaign and that his daughter worked for the Democratic Party. If ever there was an obvious case for a judge to recuse himself because of manifest bias it was this one.
But instead of criticism, major newspapers and cable networks ran glowing profiles of Merchan, portraying him as “compassionate” and fair and impartial. This was despite Merchan routinely making unprecedented prejudicial rulings against Trump, including threatening him with jail time if he talked about the trial, refusing to allow a federal election law expert testify about whether Trump even committed a campaign law offense, and worst, not requiring the jury to agree unanimously on any underlying crime Trump allegedly committed by falsifying business records.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Democratic attacks on Cannon come within a larger context of their multiyear assault on the independence of the judiciary, in particular its assault on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 originalist majority. A network of opaquely funded far-left groups have coordinated with the Democrats and their media allies to attack the character of the most conservative justices on the nation’s highest court.
Thankfully, this effort has so far failed. The Supreme Court retains far higher public approval than Biden and congressional Democrats. But the nakedly hypocritical and opportunistic attacks on the judiciary by the party of the Left should be noted and resisted.