Pam Bondi Locks Bar Association Out Of Vetting Trump’s Judicial Nominees

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday informed the American Bar Association that she is cutting off its access to nonpublic information about President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees because she thinks the nonpartisan organization is an “activist group.”

“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 said in a letter to ABA president William Bay.

“There is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so,” she said. “Specifically, the Office of Legal Policy will no longer direct nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to non-public information, including bar records. Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA.”

An ABA spokesperson confirmed to HuffPost that the organization has seen the letter and has no comment for now, but the group will have one going forward.

Here’s a copy of Bondi’s letter:

Conservatives have bemoaned the ABA’s ratings of judicial nominees for years, so Bondi’s move isn’t entirely surprising. President George W. Bush ended the the organization’s veto power over his nominees in 2001, claiming it had a liberal bias. The group responded by evaluating Bush’s nominees after they were submitted to the Senate. President Barack Obama restored the ABA’s role in the judicial nomination process in March 2009.

But contrary to Bondi’s claims, the ABA isn’t an activist group. It’s a voluntary bar association of lawyers and law students nationwide. The ABA has been around since 1878 and has played a role in federal judicial nominations since 1948. It launched its committee on the federal judiciary in 1953 and has since been vetting judicial nominees on a scale of “not qualified” to “well qualified.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Bondi’s move “blatantly political” and said she’s trying to provide cover to extreme and unqualified nominees “who would crumble” under a nonpartisan review by their peers.

“This decision will ultimately ease the confirmation process for Trump nominees who have demonstrated bias against protected classes, don’t have the judicial temperament to rule fairly from the bench, or don’t have the requisite experience to be confirmed to lifetime appointments as federal court judges, negatively impacting generations of Americans,” Durbin said in a statement.

Ten of Trump’s judicial picks earned embarrassing “not qualified” ABA ratings in his first term, which is likely another reason why Bondi is shutting out the group.

How can we forget Trump’s former judicial nominee Brett Talley? The then 36-year-old lawyer and former paranormal activity investigator tweeted about Hillary Clinton being “rotten” and said his solution to the Sandy Hook shooting massacre “would be to stop being a society of pansies and man up.”

There was Matthew Petersen, then a 36-year-old lawyer who couldn’t answer basic questions about law in his confirmation hearing and was basically shamed into withdrawing his nomination. Jeff Mateer, then a 52-year-old lawyer who described transgender children as evidence of “Satan’s plan” and endorsed gay conversion therapy, was withdrawn too.

Some of Trump’s past judicial nominees did get through, though, despite being rated “not qualified.” Sarah Pitlyk, then a 42-year-old lawyer and former clerk to then-D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was unanimously rated “not qualified” because of her “very substantial gap” in trial or litigation experience.

“Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. She has never examined a witness,” reads Pitlyk’s ABA review in 2019. “Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.”

Republicans still confirmed her to her seat on a U.S. District Court in Missouri.

There was also Lawrence VanDyke, then a 46-year-old lawyer and former solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana. The ABA interviewed 60 people in its evaluation of VanDyke, including 43 lawyers and 16 judges. It found that his colleagues “would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community.”

“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” reads the particularly brutal ABA review of VanDyke in 2019. “There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.”

VanDyke cried during his Senate nomination hearing when these details were read back to him. Still, despite the ABA’s findings, Republicans confirmed him to his current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Beyond any lingering grievances Trump may have against the ABA from his first term, he may also just be straight-up retaliating against the group for condemning his brazen attacks on federal judges and on the rule of law itself.

In March, the ABA president issued an unusual statement criticizing unnamed Trump administration officials for making “repeated calls for the impeachment of judges who issue opinions with which the government does not agree.”

“There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear,” Bay said. “We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar?”

“Who will speak for the judiciary?” he said. “Who will protect our system of justice? If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?”