The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and does not set policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
If people in America only accept a judge’s ruling when they agree with it, or accept an election when their preferred candidate wins, then our democracy is in trouble. This applies to all political parties and ideological perspectives equally.
We’ve written extensively about the dangers of former President Donald Trump’s election denial, as he continues to falsely claim the election he lost nearly two years ago was stolen from him. And we see a sort of echo of these claims in some of the criticisms lodged against Judge Aileen Cannon as of late.
Cannon is the federal judge presiding over a case involving the Department of Justice’s investigation into Trump’s handling of classified materials, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s search of his Mar-a-Lago property. She granted Trump’s request for an independent special master to review documents for potential attorney-client and executive privilege, initially paused the Justice Department’s use of 100 documents with classified markings and later overruled the special master to effectively say that Trump’s legal team does not yet need to provide evidence to back up some of their client’s claims.
Some have been quick to accuse Cannon of corruption for her decisions, and this had been disheartening and dangerous. Did we disagree with parts of her rulings? Absolutely. But how we disagree matters. Wrongly held decisions should be appealed, not held up as a supposed example of corruption. As we’ve seen with spiraling election denial, the health of our republic is shaken when people only accept results they like.
There is an important difference between arguing that a decision is wrong and claiming corruption on the part of a judge. Some of Cannon’s critics, many of them also Trump critics, are managing to sound a lot like the former president when they lodge these types of accusations. Never forget that it is possible to just be wrong, rather than corrupt. It is possible to disagree, and disagree strongly, without undermining the legitimacy of our systems.
Contested elections have recounts, audits and court challenges. Contested court rulings can be appealed. This is how the process works. And we shouldn’t have to like the outcome to respect the process.
Justice is not only done when judges reach a verdict with which we agree. An election is not only valid when the people we support win. It seems to us that these used to be pretty standard acknowledgments in American democracy.
Much has been made about Cannon being appointed by Trump. Well, it’s also worth emphasizing that an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which strongly rebuked Cannon, came from a three-judge panel including two Trump appointees. It really shouldn’t matter who appointed a judge, and the obsession over “Trump judges,” “Obama judges,” etc., is a Trumpian take on the judiciary that our country needs to move away from.
The legal process in this case is ongoing. The Justice Department has been successful in getting the 11th circuit to speed up review of the department’s appeal of Cannon’s order to appoint the special master. And Trump has asked the Supreme Court to review the 11th circuit’s previous ruling that partially overturned Cannon and allowed the Justice Department’s review of 100 documents with classified markings to resume.
There are a lot of moving parts here. As they continue to unfold, people should remember that the rule of law and the process required to ensure it demand respect, even when we don’t like the outcome.
