Pam Bondi locks out American Bar Association after they rated Trump judges not qualified and made one cry
Attorney General Pam Bondi just delivered a crushing blow to America’s oldest legal organization. The reason? They had the audacity to actually evaluate Trump’s judicial picks.
The Nuclear Option
In a letter that’s sending shockwaves through legal circles, Bondi officially cut off the American Bar Association from accessing confidential information about Trump’s judicial nominees.
Her reasoning? The ABA has become nothing more than an “activist group” that unfairly targets conservative judges.
“Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations,” Bondi wrote.
The move effectively ends a partnership that has existed since 1948, when the ABA first began vetting federal judicial candidates.
A Pattern of Bias?
This isn’t the first time Republicans have clashed with the ABA over judicial nominations.
President George W. Bush made a similar move in 2001, claiming the organization had developed a liberal bias. Obama later restored their role in 2009.
But Trump’s experience with the ABA during his first term was particularly brutal.
The Hall of Shame
Several of Trump’s judicial picks received embarrassing “not qualified” ratings from the ABA.
There was Brett Talley, a 36-year-old paranormal investigator who called Hillary Clinton “rotten” and suggested the solution to Sandy Hook was for society to “man up.”
Matthew Petersen couldn’t answer basic legal questions during his confirmation hearing and withdrew in shame.
Jeff Mateer described transgender children as part of “Satan’s plan” before his nomination was pulled.
The Most Brutal Reviews
Some nominees pushed through despite scathing ABA evaluations.
Sarah Pitlyk was rated “not qualified” because she had never tried a case, examined a witness, or picked a jury. Republicans confirmed her anyway.
Lawrence VanDyke’s review was particularly devastating. The ABA interviewed 60 people and found colleagues wouldn’t say he’d be fair to LGBTQ litigants.
“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge,” the review stated.
The Emotional Breakdown
Here’s where things got truly uncomfortable.
When VanDyke’s brutal ABA review was read aloud during his Senate confirmation hearing, the grown man broke down and cried on national television.
The sight of a federal judicial nominee weeping over criticism of his qualifications was unprecedented.
Yet Republicans still confirmed him to the powerful 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Real Motivation
Beyond the embarrassing ratings, there’s another reason Bondi may be targeting the ABA.
In March, the organization’s president issued a rare statement condemning Trump administration officials for making “repeated calls for the impeachment of judges who issue opinions with which the government does not agree.”
The ABA president asked: “If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?”
Apparently, Bondi’s answer is “never again” – at least not with access to confidential nominee information.
The move ensures Trump’s second-term judicial picks will face less scrutiny from the legal establishment, potentially clearing the path for more controversial appointments to lifetime positions on federal courts.