DOJ Declares War on ABA: A Blatant Bid to Undermine Judicial Scrutiny

Washington D.C. – In a move reeking of political strong-arming, Attorney General Pam Bondi has formally declared the American Bar Association (ABA) an unwelcome participant in the evaluation of President Felonious Punk’s judicial nominees. The Justice Department’s letter, dated May 29, 2025, effectively seeks to silence a decades-old tradition of independent review, a decision that appears less about procedural fairness and far more about a brazen attempt to erode public faith in judicial integrity and ram through ideologically aligned appointments.

The administration’s justification for this unprecedented ousting is the timeworn accusation that the ABA, an organization whose most aggressive public activity often seems to be navigating post-luncheon waistlines, is a hotbed of anti-Republican bias. In her letter to ABA President William R. Bay, AG Bondi asserted the ABA “no longer functions as a fair arbiter” and that its ratings “invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations.” Yet, tellingly, the letter provides no new evidence to substantiate this sweeping indictment.

This narrative conveniently ignores readily available data. During President Punk’s first term, the ABA rated a remarkable 96% of his 264 nominees as “Qualified” or “Well Qualified,” with only 10 deemed “Not Qualified.” In contrast, a 2011 Marquette University Law School study found that President Obama’s early nominees faced a “Not Qualified” rate three and a half times higher than those of his two predecessors. Such facts are inconvenient truths for an administration seemingly determined to manufacture a grievance.

The true intent behind this maneuver is betrayed by the Attorney General’s own choice of words. By repeatedly branding the ABA as just another “activist organization,” on par with any partisan advocacy group, the DOJ attempts to delegitimize its long-standing role in providing non-partisan, professional assessments of judicial candidates. This isn’t the language of an administration seeking impartial evaluation; it’s the rhetoric of one aiming to discredit any potential critic and control the narrative, particularly for a base conditioned to distrust established institutions. In doing so, the Justice Department not only nullifies any claim to the moral high ground but reveals itself as a “trash-talking straw” entity, seemingly executing a directive from a higher political power.

This move is transparently about shielding the President’s nominees, especially potentially controversial ones like his recently named personal lawyer, Emil Bove, for a Court of Appeals seat, from rigorous, independent professional scrutiny. By instructing the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy to no longer direct nominees to provide waivers for non-public information or to participate in ABA interviews and questionnaires, the administration aims to create an information vacuum around its candidates.

The fallout is predictable and deeply concerning for the health of the American judiciary:

1. Erosion of Independent Vetting: A key layer of independent, professional assessment, however imperfect or debated, is being aggressively dismantled.
2. Further Politicization: This action will undoubtedly intensify the partisan nature of judicial appointments, prioritizing ideological purity and loyalty over broad legal experience and temperament.
3. Reduced Public Transparency: Without the ABA’s readily understandable ratings, it becomes harder for the average citizen to gauge the professional qualifications of individuals nominated for lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
4. Potential for Less Qualified Judiciary: The ultimate risk is the elevation of judges who may not meet traditional standards of competence or impartiality, further undermining public trust in the courts as fair arbiters of justice.

While the administration can sever its formal cooperation, it cannot entirely silence the ABA, which will likely continue to evaluate nominees based on public information. Ornery Senators, as one observer noted, may indeed take delight in bringing any negative ABA reviews, however compiled, directly to the Senate floor, potentially thwarting the administration’s attempt at complete narrative control.

Ultimately, this decision by AG Bondi is far more than a procedural adjustment. It is a calculated strike against the mechanisms of judicial oversight, a transparent attempt to rig the game in favor of the President’s picks, and another worrying step in a broader campaign to undermine faith in the very institutions designed to uphold the rule of law. For a voting public already navigating a complex and often misleading information landscape, this move only deepens the challenge of discerning truth and holding power accountable.