You’re Fired, Pam Bondi

In this episode of Advisory Opinions, hosts Sarah Isger and David French dissect a series of high-stakes legal and political developments. The firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi just before the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship argument sets the tone, prompting a deep dive into the role of the AG as a political instrument rather than a legal guardian. The hosts critique Bondi’s tenure, her mishandling of the Epstein binder release, and debate potential successors—favoring Todd Blanche for his ruthlessness and competence, though warning of his potential to become a 'ruthlessness, competence singularity.' They also analyze the Supreme Court's recent GVR (grant, vacate, remand) decisions in the Steve Bannon and Sittenfeld cases, noting the Court’s avoidance of live controversies when indictments are pending. The episode then turns to the landmark Childs v. Salazar decision, an 8-1 ruling protecting talk therapy as free speech, even when it aims to help minors change their sexual orientation. The hosts argue this reflects a broader cultural shift: the old culture war over constitutional principles has given way to a new one centered on power and control. They emphasize that the ruling is not a free-for-all but a defense of viewpoint neutrality in speech regulation, with Justice Kagan’s concurrence raising important questions about content-based but viewpoint-neutral laws. The discussion extends to the ethics of military targeting, with the hosts condemning President Trump’s rhetoric about bombing Iran’s infrastructure as potentially war criminal, stressing the need for military necessity and proportionality under international law. Finally, they critique the use of exclamation points in judicial opinions, arguing they undermine judicial detachment, and question the standing of the National Trust in a case challenging the White House ballroom renovation. Key takeaways include: 1) The Attorney General is increasingly a political appointment, not a legal one; 2) The Supreme Court’s free speech protection extends to therapeutic speech, even when ideologically charged; 3) The culture war has shifted from principle-based debate to power-based domination; 4) Military strikes on civilian infrastructure require strict legal justification, not just strategic advantage; 5) Judicial opinions should maintain emotional neutrality, avoiding punctuation that signals bias; 6) Standing based on aesthetic injury is legally dubious and could open floodgates to litigation; 7) Malpractice and tort law remain effective tools for addressing harm without broad speech bans; 8) The Court’s decisions reflect a deep commitment to viewpoint neutrality, even in sensitive areas like medical counseling.