Federal judges these days are often alleged to be aligned with one party or the other. While this may be a reality for the U.S. Supreme Court, for most of the rest it’s not.

Take Lance Walker, chief judge for Maine’s federal courts.

Though appointed by President Donald Trump, Walker has shown time and again that his allegiance is to something that may seem quaint these days: the law.

It’s no wonder the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed him — imagine that! — and that both of Maine’s senators firmly backed him. Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King, in a joint statement, declared he had “the intelligence, temperament and integrity required for this important position.”

I’ve only seen Walker in a courtroom once, during the ranked-choice voting case brought by former U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin after his 2018 defeat. The suspicion leveled against federal appointees was something I felt, then, too; my expectations were informed by Walker’s Republican background, his support from Trump and the heated political issue on his docket.

But I was wrong in thinking Walker would back Poliquin.

Walker not only delivered a solid decision that upheld the new system of voting, he did it with flair. The guy can write, always a plus in my book. I’ve read a lot of his rulings in the years since, always impressed and usually convinced by the strength of his arguments that he came down on the right side.

That’s easier said than done.

At its best, our laws are an odd mix of statutes, principles and traditions that make up a system that is predictable, accountable, accessible and impartial — with justice as its guiding value.

That getting it right isn’t easy ought to be obvious. If it was simple, there’d be no need for an array of local, state and federal courts to handle all the disagreements.

Walker, a University of Maine Law graduate who’s been a federal judge since 2018, happily swats away cases that lack merit.

In January, he knocked down a request for an injunction by pointing out there was “no real threat of imminent harm,” a typical requirement. What I enjoyed was his next sentence, dismissing the plaintiff’s supposed concern: “This fear is a nonjusticiable bugbear.”

In the 2018 ranked-choice voting case, Walker carefully laid out how the system works and why Poliquin’s arguments against it flew in the face of precedent. Walker allowed that the new voting method “may suffer from problems,” but pointed out that “all voting systems do.”

Walker said he had no reason to overturn the law and suggested the proper response of its opponents ought to be political in nature: to try to repeal it.

During the pandemic, Walker was dismissive of those challenging public health restrictions aimed at minimizing the spread of COVID-19. In one case, he noted, “This collective crisis ought to have imposed a sense of collective humility, given the long shadow cast by all that we do not know about the disease.”

That sentence helps clarify why Walker is so suited for the job he holds. He understands the humility needed to to do the best possible with the information available — and the weight of what lawmakers and judges have done in the past.

For once, the Senate got it right.