Is Pam Bondi Qualified?

[Anonymous]

If the qualification is blind loyalty and a high tolerance for corruption, then yes, she is.

Oh, did you mean something else? There is nothing else. Not with this administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the below make her sound qualified?

"Mr. Reuveni’s removal was in keeping with a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi that lawyers must not deviate from the decisions made by their superiors. She went so far as to release a statement saying the suspension was a message to anyone who prioritized decisions of conscience over her orders."

This is exactly opposite from what they are supposed to do..it is their stated mission to be impartial act free from political influence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/justice-department-trump-policies-defense.html

“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,” Bondi said in a statement.

ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 7: “A lawyer should represent a client zealously, within the bounds of the law.”

Seems like this is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. Impartiality and being free from political influence is for the judge.

[Anonymous]

She has been doing a good judge winning in court cases, even with hostile partisan judges eager to resist Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the below make her sound qualified?

"Mr. Reuveni’s removal was in keeping with a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi that lawyers must not deviate from the decisions made by their superiors. She went so far as to release a statement saying the suspension was a message to anyone who prioritized decisions of conscience over her orders."

This is exactly opposite from what they are supposed to do..it is their stated mission to be impartial act free from political influence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/justice-department-trump-policies-defense.html

“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,” Bondi said in a statement.

ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 7: “A lawyer should represent a client zealously, within the bounds of the law.”

Seems like this is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. Impartiality and being free from political influence is for the judge.

Im not a lawyer. And I guess what you say is fine if the federal government is acting in good faith/impartial. But that is clearly not the case. And for her to go so far as saying they need to prioritize her order over their conscience makes her sound like we are living in a dictatorship.... The best employees push back against their superiors.. and speak up if something is out of line. Unless.. your employer is a narcissist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the below make her sound qualified?

"Mr. Reuveni’s removal was in keeping with a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi that lawyers must not deviate from the decisions made by their superiors. She went so far as to release a statement saying the suspension was a message to anyone who prioritized decisions of conscience over her orders."

This is exactly opposite from what they are supposed to do..it is their stated mission to be impartial act free from political influence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/justice-department-trump-policies-defense.html

“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,” Bondi said in a statement.

ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 7: “A lawyer should represent a client zealously, within the bounds of the law.”

Seems like this is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. Impartiality and being free from political influence is for the judge.

Zealous advocacy does not include disregard for the rule of law, perpetrating a fraud on the court, lying to a court, and propounding arguments that have a sound basis in law, etc. Bondi seems to believe that "zealous advocacy" means "rabid Trumpism" and propounding arguments that have no basis in the law or the facts or even believable fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think we’ve had a lesser qualified US Attorney General in modern history. As an applicant from Florida she went to UF majoring in Criminal Justice. She went to law school at Stetson University in Florida. The University has about an 85% Acceptance rate. The law school accepts about half of the applicants. The only other Attorney General that didn’t go to top universities was Jeff sessions who went somewhere in Alabama.

Her most famous case was leading some other state Republican Attorneys General in trying to overturn affordable health care. She failed.

She supported and lied for Trump claiming fraud happened in certain states where Trump lost. She was rewarded for her lies byTrump handing her the top attorney position in the country.

Republicans and Democrats used to choose the candidates with top educations and had real accomplishments. Do we tell our children not to bother working for the government because the cheaters have taken over?

Her only qualification for Trump is her obsequent loyalty to him and, this, she is eminently qualified.

How’s that power-vocabulary app working out for you?!?!

[Anonymous]

Just won another case at the Supreme Court, where she got a block on the district judge banning the firing of probationary employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think we’ve had a lesser qualified US Attorney General in modern history. As an applicant from Florida she went to UF majoring in Criminal Justice. She went to law school at Stetson University in Florida. The University has about an 85% Acceptance rate. The law school accepts about half of the applicants. The only other Attorney General that didn’t go to top universities was Jeff sessions who went somewhere in Alabama.

Her most famous case was leading some other state Republican Attorneys General in trying to overturn affordable health care. She failed.

She supported and lied for Trump claiming fraud happened in certain states where Trump lost. She was rewarded for her lies byTrump handing her the top attorney position in the country.

Republicans and Democrats used to choose the candidates with top educations and had real accomplishments. Do we tell our children not to bother working for the government because the cheaters have taken over?

Her only qualification for Trump is her obsequent loyalty to him and, this, she is eminently qualified.

How’s that power-vocabulary app working out for you?!?!

DP. That you think this is not a word people know and use without a vocab app miiiiight just say more about you than you realize…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has been doing a good judge winning in court cases, even with hostile partisan judges eager to resist Trump.

I never understood how people can claim a judge is partisan with the sole reason being that Trump lost a case. No shame or embarrassment to make such a juvenile statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just won another case at the Supreme Court, where she got a block on the district judge banning the firing of probationary employees.

sure she did Did she have to do anything I don't think so....they are just dumpy loyalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has been doing a good judge winning in court cases, even with hostile partisan judges eager to resist Trump.

I never understood how people can claim a judge is partisan with the sole reason being that Trump lost a case. No shame or embarrassment to make such a juvenile statement.

Many politicians make the same claims and even threaten to pack the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has been doing a good judge winning in court cases, even with hostile partisan judges eager to resist Trump.

I never understood how people can claim a judge is partisan with the sole reason being that Trump lost a case. No shame or embarrassment to make such a juvenile statement.

We have seen from the appeals, these cases should have been thrown out for lack of standing, or lack of jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has been doing a good judge winning in court cases, even with hostile partisan judges eager to resist Trump.

I never understood how people can claim a judge is partisan with the sole reason being that Trump lost a case. No shame or embarrassment to make such a juvenile statement.

We have seen from the appeals, these cases should have been thrown out for lack of standing, or lack of jurisdiction.

And the judges are issuing TROs instead of preliminary injunctions, because TROs generally cannot be appealed.
Some of the courts are noticing this and treating the TROs as preliminary injunctions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just won another case at the Supreme Court, where she got a block on the district judge banning the firing of probationary employees.

sure she did Did she have to do anything I don't think so....they are just dumpy loyalists.

I agree. Of course she didn’t do any of the work. Trump gives Bondi orders and then Bondi gives the work to her underlings, the Harvard trained attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has been doing a good judge winning in court cases, even with hostile partisan judges eager to resist Trump.

I never understood how people can claim a judge is partisan with the sole reason being that Trump lost a case. No shame or embarrassment to make such a juvenile statement.

Many politicians make the same claims and even threaten to pack the Supreme Court.

I understand politicians put in judges who share their thinking with regard to the law but Trump sounds like an idiot calling any judge who rules in someone else’s favor crooked or is on a witch hunt.