Written by Nick Akerman in an NY Times guess essay, a "prosecutor on the Watergate special prosecution force", this article makes a decent case that we should relax about Trump's judge in Florida. It reminds us that, except from one really dumb decision, there is little evidence that she is biased in his favor. She is, otherwise, a very well qualified, if conservative, judge despite being appointed by President Shithead.
I would add that this is one case in this woman's career. After having been brutally criticized by the appellate court, to have another episode like that would be horrible for her future prospects. She has a good job right now, but she is young and there are many promotions that would be effectively off the table forever if she is seen as biased in this.
From his NY Times guest essay...
"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."
"There is no known evidence that suggests Judge Cannon had any personal connection with Mr. Trump or worked on any of his campaigns, circumstances that would be reason for a recusal."
"While concerns about her judgment and ability to manage the case are understandable, Judge Cannon is not known to have said or written anything that suggests such a bias toward Republicans or blindness toward justice that would wholly disqualify her from a case involving Mr. Trump."