As every lawyer is brutally aware, the judge on a case holds extraordinary power in making or breaking the case. From slow-walking rulings to the usual “denied” from the bench without even pretending to glance at the papers, there are a thousand little decisions that spell the difference between dismissal/acquittal and conviction. Much as some of us hope for fair, smart and reasonable judges, we know only too well that some judges fall short. And then there’s United States District Judge Aileen Cannon.

Her name may be familiar to many. Judge Cannon heard Trump’s challenge to the government’s classified-documents investigation, appointed a special master to review the documents, and temporarily barred the Justice Department from using those records in its investigation. That much-maligned decision was later reversed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit consisting of three conservative judges: two Trump appointees and the G.W. Bush–appointed Chief Judge William Pryor. They wrote that her decision violated “clear” law and that her approach “would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations” and “violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.”

It wasn’t just that Judge Cannon, a midnight appointee during the Trump administration, lacked the background and experience for a federal judgeship. but that her taking on the Trump search warrant case at all was so obviously and flagrantly beyond her jurisdiction and without any basis in law whatsoever, might suggest some bias in favor of the guy who brung her to the dance.

That the federal indictment was brought in the Southern District of Florida, given its vacancies, and its tapped out senior judges, and ended up being wheeled out to Judge Cannon is unsurprising. The likelihood of that happening was fairly high, and the fact that it happened should not have come as any surprise to the government. Knowing this, the government made its choice.

Perhaps this is a reflection of the strength of its case, not caring whether Judge Cannon caught it. Perhaps this is a reflection of trying to show a certain cynical portion of the public that the government wasn’t trying to game the judge, even to the extent of trying to keep it out of the hands of a judge who had already shown an inclination to be kind toward Trump. Of course, it didn’t assuage Trump supporters, but then nothing would.

But if Judge Cannon is biased in favor of Trump, shouldn’t she recuse herself? From her perspective, recusal might be a wise move, as she’s very young and her future as a federal judge (or elsewhere) will be affected by what happens in this case. Having already embarrassed herself once, a second time would mean one of two things. She will either be forever known as  a judge so lacking in integrity that her sitting on the bench is a disgrace, or she will be on the short list for Supreme Court should Trump be re-elected.

As a tactical matter, any attempt by the government to push Judge Cannon to recuse herself will come off poorly. First, calling a judge biased, whether by letter or motion, rarely endears a judge to the litigants. Second, there being no hard reason under 28 U.S.C. § 455 requiring recusal, it will be entirely in Judge Cannon’s discretion. The fact that a judge makes an adverse ruling, whether in the same or another case, to one side is not a basis for recusal. Judges rule and the losing side generally feels pretty crappy about it. But that’s how it goes, and it does not, alone, tar a judge as biased.

The prong upon which recusal could be sought is the appearance of impropriety, where the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” While that would seem to be a very low bar, in reality it’s almost never met. Otherwise, judges would be challenged constantly and a great many cases could never be tried as no judge would be so pure that a reasonable argument couldn’t be made questioning her impartiality. Even worse, it would empower litigants to create antagonism with a judge who isn’t showing them the love, by grieving or writting them, and manufacturing a question of impartiality to rid themselves of the meddlesome judge. Judges know that game, and they are not inclined to play.

That said, it’s possible that as the case proceeds, rulings are issued that are either so flagrantly biased or legally baseless that Judge Cannon’s impartiality is not merely called into question, but can no longer be shrugged off. A smart judge can pull this off in small bites so that there is no decision to point to that so clearly reflects bias as to make an argument that can’t be denied. For example, add a couple months to each decision to drag out the prosecution until after the election.

How so? Make some equivocal rulings on whether Corcoran’s notes satisfied the fraud/crime exception. Request additional briefing on the issue of selective prosecution. It’s bias by a thousand knives that doesn’t quite rise to the level of obviousness to take a judge down, but ultimately serves the same purpose. Not only does this happen, but it happens all the time and there isn’t a thing to be done about it.

But every decision Judge Cannon makes will be the subject of extreme scrutiny, parsed within an inch of its life to find impropriety. That’s the consequence of her misbegotten decision to accept jurisdiction over the search warrant challenge. Does she really want this? Will it be worth it, whether for her career or her jurisprudence? Given the nature of this case and what has already transpired, Judge Cannon would be wise to recuse herself not because any party asked, but because there is nothing that will happen in this case that won’t end up poorly for her. Let another judge take the load, both for the sake of the appearance of impropriety and because this case shouldn’t carry the taint of a likely partial judge. Whether Judge Cannon will do the wise thing, however, remains to be seen.