I am not surprised, but per your site this action undermines any sense of accountability, which of course that is what they want. Everyone's primary focus should be on insuring that the November election is not subverted, and that as many people as possible vote. If at least 1 House of Congress does not become a Democratic majority, G-d help this country. If they are doing these overt anti-democratic actions now, just wait if there is no constraint. Become a poll worker, raise the issue of Trump intending to disrupt the election, we need to continue to press our representatives and keep making this issue in people's consciousness.
The best thing to do, especially if you live in a swing state, is to educate yourself on the issues with the vote tabulation machines that became apparent in the 2024 election, and then work with your local precinct/district to push for a hand recount of the ballots. See http://ElectionTruthAlliance.org. If you live in Florida, see also https://itsuptous.substack.com/
The only suggestion I have is that an agency has to review all comments, but it must only address substantive comments. That means objecting will be noted, but rule making does not require public approval—in other words, it’s not a vote. To make the agency address your comment, and perhaps modify its proposed rule, make the comment as substantive as you can. This way the public record will show that the agency ignored a genuine issue in favor of its own self-serving policy.
My comment: As a former federal attorney barred to practice in several jurisdictions I find the content of this proposed rule contrary to my sworn bar obligations and consequently I am certain that all current DOJ attorneys would have the same conflict. The federal government cannot require state bar admission and then at the same time suspend the bar regulations in 50 jurisdictions upon its sole initiative. This proposal would create a class of super-attorneys beholden only to political agendas. The idea of this rule is contrary to the rule of law our society was premised on. Furthermore, it violates the public trust and leaves no recourse for genuine misconduct. The substance of this rule is in conflict with 50 bar regulations and should it not be promulgated.
Thanks for sharing this, along with the details about Bondi’s interference with State Bar licensing rights, and for including the link to submit a comment.
Submitted - thanks for all the work you are doing to allow justice to prevail.
I submitted too. Thank you for informing us!
I am not surprised, but per your site this action undermines any sense of accountability, which of course that is what they want. Everyone's primary focus should be on insuring that the November election is not subverted, and that as many people as possible vote. If at least 1 House of Congress does not become a Democratic majority, G-d help this country. If they are doing these overt anti-democratic actions now, just wait if there is no constraint. Become a poll worker, raise the issue of Trump intending to disrupt the election, we need to continue to press our representatives and keep making this issue in people's consciousness.
I agree with Bruce. Assist with elections. Be a poll monitor, attend local election board meetings. Encourage everyone to vote.
The best thing to do, especially if you live in a swing state, is to educate yourself on the issues with the vote tabulation machines that became apparent in the 2024 election, and then work with your local precinct/district to push for a hand recount of the ballots. See http://ElectionTruthAlliance.org. If you live in Florida, see also https://itsuptous.substack.com/
Thank you for bringing this to our attention along with the link to submit comment.
I really enjoy reading what Ms Oyer has to say!
I've left a comment about Bondi's interference with State Bar licensing rights.
Comment submitted!
The only suggestion I have is that an agency has to review all comments, but it must only address substantive comments. That means objecting will be noted, but rule making does not require public approval—in other words, it’s not a vote. To make the agency address your comment, and perhaps modify its proposed rule, make the comment as substantive as you can. This way the public record will show that the agency ignored a genuine issue in favor of its own self-serving policy.
My comment: As a former federal attorney barred to practice in several jurisdictions I find the content of this proposed rule contrary to my sworn bar obligations and consequently I am certain that all current DOJ attorneys would have the same conflict. The federal government cannot require state bar admission and then at the same time suspend the bar regulations in 50 jurisdictions upon its sole initiative. This proposal would create a class of super-attorneys beholden only to political agendas. The idea of this rule is contrary to the rule of law our society was premised on. Furthermore, it violates the public trust and leaves no recourse for genuine misconduct. The substance of this rule is in conflict with 50 bar regulations and should it not be promulgated.
I’ve submitted a comment. Thank you for keeping us informed! Your posts are very informative and much appreciated!
Thanks for info on this.
Submitted. Facebook won’t let me share this. So I’m going to have to copy and paste.
Thanks for sharing this, along with the details about Bondi’s interference with State Bar licensing rights, and for including the link to submit a comment.
Thank you for alerting us to this outrageous new rule Pamela Jo is trying to implement. I left my comment at the DOJ. Every American should!
I have submitted a comment. Thank you for bringing this important issue to people’s attention.
Thank you for the link. I have commented against the rule.
submitted, thank you
Submitted successfully- Thank you Liz for the information- you’re awesome!