Pam Bondi just dropped a bombshell on the judicial nomination process.

The Department of Justice, under her leadership, has severed its long-standing ties with the American Bar Association, ending the group’s privileged role in vetting federal judicial nominees, the Daily Express reported. 

The DOJ’s move strips the ABA of its ability to rate nominees for President Donald Trump’s judicial picks. For decades, the ABA enjoyed special access, often getting a heads-up on nominees before the public did. Now, that cozy relationship is history, and the implications are massive.

In a pointed letter to ABA president William Bray, Bondi made her case clear. “The ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter,” she wrote, accusing the group of favoring Democratic nominees. Her words landed like a sledgehammer, signaling a new era for judicial selections.

Ending a Long Tradition

Bondi’s letter, shared widely on X, didn’t mince words. She argued the ABA’s ratings process is riddled with bias, a claim she says Congress and others have echoed. The DOJ’s decision means nominees will no longer bother with ABA questionnaires or interviews.

Some past administrations leaned heavily on the ABA’s ratings. They’d even notify the group before going public with nominees. That kind of influence is precisely what Bondi’s targeting, and she’s not apologizing for it.

“The ABA has lost its way,” Bondi declared on X. Her supporters cheer the move, seeing it as a bold stand against a group they view as out of touch. But critics? They’re sounding the alarm, and they’re not quiet about it.

Public Reaction Splits Sharply

X is buzzing with reactions, and the divide is stark. One user fumed, “Bondi’s cast aside tradition, claiming bias without evidence.” Another called it a “dangerous erosion” of judicial independence, warning of a politicized bench.

Supporters, though, are thrilled. “Thank you so much,” one X user gushed, predicting “better judges” as a result. They see the ABA as a relic, no longer trustworthy in its once-prestigious role.

Critics aren’t buying Bondi’s rationale. “The party of ‘hire qualified candidates’ is upset at the group who tells them if nominations are qualified,” one X user snarked. The jab stings, but Bondi’s camp isn’t backing down.

Concerns Over Bondi’s Payment

Adding fuel to the fire, Bondi’s recent $1 million payment has raised eyebrows. Critics on X are connecting dots, suggesting the DOJ’s move is less about fairness and more about political maneuvering. The optics aren’t great, and the timing’s even worse.

Bondi’s defenders argue the payment’s irrelevant. They point to her letter, where she insists the ABA’s bias is the real issue. “The ABA’s refusal to fix its ratings process is disquieting,” she wrote, framing the decision as principled, not personal.

Still, the critics keep pushing. “It’s OK for the administration to interfere with the judicial system,” one X user quipped, highlighting the hypocrisy they see. The debate’s getting heated, and it’s not cooling down anytime soon.

A Risky Move for Justice

The ABA’s role wasn’t perfect, but it provided a check on nominations. For seven decades, it evaluated candidates based on merit—integrity, competence, temperament. Now, with the DOJ calling the shots solo, some fear loyalty will trump law.

Bondi’s gamble could reshape the judiciary for years. “Judges rule on our rights, our freedoms,” one X user warned, urging people to “raise your voice.” They’re not wrong— the stakes are sky-high.

Love it or hate it, Bondi’s decision is a game-changer. The ABA’s out, the DOJ’s in charge, and Trump’s nominees face a new path to the bench. One thing’s clear: Actions have consequences, and we’re all about to see what they are.