Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson spoke with former federal and state prosecutor George Parry about the Trump administration’s decision to sever ties between the Department of Justice and the American Bar Association (ABA) in the judicial vetting process. The move, which Parry praised as “long overdue,” comes after years of criticism that the ABA has applied overt political bias in evaluating judicial nominees.
Attorney General Bondi recently announced that the ABA would no longer serve as an informal gatekeeper for federal judicial appointments, a role it had held for decades. The ABA has long rated the qualifications of judicial nominees, but critics—including Senator Ted Cruz, also referenced in the interview—have accused the organization of ideological bias, particularly against conservative candidates. High-profile legal minds such as Robert Bork, Frank Easterbrook, and Edith Jones were all rated “not qualified” by the ABA despite their exceptional legal credentials.
George Parry, who has tracked the ABA’s actions for decades, said the group abandoned neutrality as early as 1992 when it adopted a pro-abortion stance. Parry resigned from the ABA at that time, arguing that its move into hot-button political issues was incompatible with its role as a professional legal organization. He warned that the ABA has since wielded enormous power—not only in influencing judicial nominations but also in determining which law schools are accredited, often tying that status to compliance with progressive DEI mandates.
According to Parry, the ABA’s judicial evaluations routinely reflect political litmus tests rather than legal merit. He recounted how ABA interviewers often asked nominees about their political views, signaling that a lack of alignment with progressive orthodoxy would weigh against them. With the DOJ’s new policy, the ABA will now be treated like any other advocacy group—free to express opinions, but no longer part of the official judicial vetting process.
Proft and Jacobson also asked Parry about the broader state of the judiciary, particularly the trend of federal district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions. Parry predicted that if the Supreme Court doesn’t move to restrict this practice, Donald Trump, if reelected, might echo Andrew Jackson’s defiance of the judiciary. He argued that enforcement of court orders depends on executive cooperation, and that the courts’ growing reliance on moral authority is becoming increasingly fragile.
Parry also weighed in on the ongoing debate over crime and prosecution in major U.S. cities. He pushed back against claims that violent crime is falling, saying the statistics are being manipulated. In Philadelphia, where Parry resides, he said many crimes go unreported to the FBI’s database, and the apparent decline is a result of data suppression rather than actual improvements in public safety.
He was particularly critical of Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, labeling him as ideologically driven and soft on crime. According to Parry, Krasner has dramatically reduced the city’s jail population by refusing to prosecute repeat offenders, fueling a persistent wave of violence. Parry blamed Krasner’s political success on off-year elections with low turnout, where ward leaders—often incentivized by campaign donations—play an outsized role in mobilizing voters. He claimed that financial backing from George Soros allowed Krasner to effectively purchase the support of ward leaders and maintain his hold on the DA’s office.
Parry concluded that the public is not getting a true picture of the law-and-order crisis in cities like Philadelphia. He argued that entrenched political machines and manipulated crime data are masking the real state of urban violence and justice system dysfunction.
George Parry blogs at knowledgeisgood.net and is a regular contributor to The American Spectator.