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.
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 didDid she have to do anything I don't think so....they are just dumpy loyalists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:She has been doing a good judge winning in court cases, even with hostile partisan judges eager to resist Trump.
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?!?!![]()
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.
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.
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.
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