There is not enough evidence of corrupt intent, but why shouldn't the merits of a decision be able to warrant a complaint based on negligence?

We adjust the "reasonable man" standard to account for certain types of training and experience (e.g. a doctor is expected to adhere to standards and practices typical to their specialty). A judge with Cannon's training and experience should not arrive at the decision she rendered if she is engaged in her work with reasonable care. She was taught about equitable jurisdiction in her first or second semester of law school.

I'm not going to question Pryor's dismissal of the complaints because admittedly I don't know what the ethics code is, but seems to be it is unethical to negligently render decisions from a federal bench. I would hope federal judges are aware of what the law is and how to apply a rule to a set of facts, which is about the most basic thing a lawyer can do . . yet she continued on after DOJ showed it did not display callous disregard.