Bondi says ABA will no longer have preferred access to court appointments

For as long as I can remember, the American Bar Association (ABA) has been given preferential access to judicial nominations to offer a rating system for potential judges.

According to Attorney General Pam Bondi, that will no longer be the case.

The ABA

The ABA was founded in 1878, representing 20 states and the District of Columbia at the time.

When it was founded, it consisted of 75 attorneys, a number that has since grown to more than 400,000 individuals and 3,500 entities.

The ABA also has a 15-member committee tasked with rating every judicial nominee, using a three-pronged ratings scale: Well Qualified, Qualified, and Not Qualified.

Currently, Donald Trump has at least 10 of his appointments on the Not Qualified list, which may have a little something to do with a recent announcement by Attorney General Pam Bondi. I would also note that the list, which shows all appointments from 1989 through the first Trump administration, does not offer a single candidate as Not Qualified during the Obama administration, and only four from the Clinton administration.

Bondi Done with Ratings

Some members of Congress lean heavily on these ratings, as do the media members who report on these judicial appointments.

As part of that process, the ABA would get the list early to begin its research and release its findings, but that will no longer be the case.

Bondi announced, "For several decades, the American Bar Association has received special treatment and enjoyed special access to judicial nominees.

"In some administrations, the ABA received notice of nominees before a nomination was announced to the public. Some administrations would even decide whether to nominate an individual based on a rating assigned by the ABA."

Dems Fuming

Needless to say, Democrats were not happy, and they immediately started making moves to block Bondi from being able to remove the ABA from the vetting process.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, ripped the administration for the move, stating, “This is a seismic change in the judicial nominations process — and unjustified and blatantly political move by the Trump Administration.”

Carl Tobias, chair of the University of Richmond School of Law, added, “What are they afraid of? That’s just information that could potentially be valuable — and now Bondi has done is say that they don’t want to hear from the other side. They don’t want to hear from the largest professional organization in the country that has worked for seven decades with presidents of all parties.”

This is all part of Trump’s war against the judiciary, as he is furious the courts continue to block him, but it is very important to note that it is not only Democrat-appointed judges. In fact, in numerous cases, judges who Trump appointed have ruled against him, the latest being a judge who ruled against his tariffs on the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). I am going to reserve judgment on this one until I hear more feedback from legal experts who I actually respect. So, stay tuned.