But in this case it would be to “shun” the only party/offender that comes before the FISA court - DOJ/FBI seeking warrants to wiretap/surveil. And my respect goes beyond having matters “before her”; I worked directly for and with her on major cases where she exercised her nonreviewable statutory discretion as to whether to prosecute or not. She made hard decisions that went contrary to the interests/hopes of those who supported her original nomination [but decisions that were consistent with the law], thus knowingly torpedoing her chances of renomination.
As you know, she'd shun the offenders on a personal one-by-one basis.
-- And my respect goes beyond having matters "before her"; I worked directly for and with her on major cases ... --
Okay, so expand my observation from "matters before her" which has a narrow clinical definition, to matters you are sufficiently aware of. I don't doubt your observations. I am simply unwilling to extend them to the point of considering Collyer to be trustworthy in all matters.
-- She made hard decisions ... thus knowingly torpedoing her chances of renomination. --
Renomination? Judges hold office for life / good conduct. Her FISA stint is at CJ discretion, and time limited by statute.