486
US attorneys handpicked by Pam Bondi were appointed illegally, judge rules
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
486 points (99.4% liked)
News
36512 readers
2186 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Judges need to put on their big boys pants and start holding this administration in contempt. They don't learn unless it hurts their bottom line.
They're already moving in that direction, and today I heard Pam Bondi is trying to rewrite the rules so that if any state bar -- those bodies tasked with discipline of attorneys in every state, a task entirely reserved to the states by both law and regulation for many years -- investigates a federal attorney, the DoJ gets first exclusive hit at the investigation. LegalEagle did a great explainer on it today:
Bondi Demands DoJ Exempt From Ethics Oversight -- LegalEagle
Invidious Link
It's insane. But this recent move toward contempt is why: she's trying to get out in front of the state bars so that she can continue to direct federal attorneys to do illegal, unconstitutional, and blatantly corrupt things.
Yeah all of this stuff and noone has been held in contempt still. It is still just strongly worded letters.
That's just false. One already has been and more are in process.
That too is demonstrably false. It's what the sworn declarations are all about:
That is demonstrable fact. Sworn declarations are not just strongly worded letters, any more than orders or judgements are. To expect judges to employ something other than the tools of their trade -- the "worded letters" you scorn -- is insane.
Contempt rulings against ICE attorneys have already happened. Clearly more are coming. But if you can't accept the fact of what tangibly IS, I do not expect you to accept the fact of what may possibly, intangibly be in the future, so there's that.
Sometimes people just like to shit on anything factually, tangibly good that is happening in the right direction because it is not ALL and PERFECT and EVERYTHING they want it to be. For myself, I appreciate that there are still people actually fighting and doing what they personally can do within their own sphere of influence, like these judges. They deserve to have the truth told about the good they are doing.
Yeah that is one where she said "please hold me in contempt, so I can sleep" and the DOJ fired her. No jail time. We will see if that other judge follows through. From my perspective it is like two dogs barking at each other until the gate opens and they both don't do anything. Until there is jail time nothing changes. Unless that is not what being held in contempt is.
I wonder how many US judges lean conservative