A recent piece lambasts Judge Denise Cote, the federal judge in charge of the Justice Department’s antitrust suit against Apple, for being “abusive” and “shredding the separation of constitutional powers.” According to the piece, this was done by appointing and granting broad authority to antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich. The Wall Street Journal’s harsh critique mirrors many of the grievances outlined by Apple in the company’s complaint to the court last week, taking issue with Bromwich’s fees, which exceeded $100,000 in just his first two weeks, and accusing Cote of granting Bromwich “carte blanche to act as the inquisitor of all things Cupertino.”

The paper views Judge Cote’s decision as “essentially ruled before hearing the evidence” against Apple and her appointment of an external monitor, let alone Bromwich, whom the WSJ calls “her friend,” is viewed by the paper as a “flatly unconstitutional” violation of her mandate in the case. The following was mentioned regarding the matter:

The WSJ continues to paint Bromwich as a “political fixer” linked to the investigations of the BP Horizon deepwater oil spill and the Reagan administration’s Iran-Contra affair. His service as the Justice Department’s inspector general is also called into question, with the revelation that Judge Cote herself penned an endorsement for Bromwich that helped get the prosecutor confirmed by the Senate despite concerns about conflicts of interest. The paper asserts that Judge Cote’s "condominium with Mr. Bromwich is offensive to the rule of law and a disgrace to the judiciary."

The WSJ may be coming to the aid of its News Corp. stablemate and Apple’s antitrust defendant, publisher HarperCollins, which Fortune’s Philip Elmer-Dewitt points out was originally averse to joining with Apple and only did so after a personal appeal from Apple’s then-CEO Steve Jobs to News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch.

Source: The Wall Street Journal via AppleInsider