Awful decision!
It's unlikely I would agree with any Tory Cabinet member's views on human rights etc, but it's not even that. She's just incompetent.
Seriously annoyed about this.
Such an important, prestigious position and the PM just gives it to anyone whose loyalty he wants to reward.
Starting with @StevePeers's experience of working with her. If someone can manage to annoy Steve, and make him badmouth them, there really must be something wrong with them!

I seem to recall something she wrote about her experiences of being a Tory in a leftwing human rights chambers (unsure if she meant @No5Chambers?)
"Suella Braverman, former judicial review barrister, claimed courts were guilty of “chronic & steady encroachment”, accusing them of “supplanting Parliament”.
standard.co.uk/news/politics/…
Why was she in a human rights chambers in the first place then? Why specialise in JR & human rights, when you don't really approve of either?
conservativehome.com/platform/2019/…
"Consistently voted against laws to promote equality & human rights".

- Voted against investigations into the Iraq war.
(So our new AG didn't want claims of torture investigated).
- Generally voted against right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK

- Generally voted for a stricter asylum system
- Consistently voted for requiring the mass retention of information about communications
- Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities

@joannaccherry & Suella Braverman.
Suella seems to think the EU Charter isn't part of our law, so adopting it would lead to uncertainty and chaos. Joanna putting her right, we already have the Charter and no great chaos has resulted.

I think I'll stop now.
(Almost) feeling bad about this attack on someone I don't personally know.
But I am angry about this (in case that wasn't clear...).
We shouldn't allow our legal system's reputation to be sacrificed in order to reward personal loyalties.
I had seen references to Suella Braverman's immigration law work and found it hard to believe. Now it makes sense. She acted for the government, opposing judicial review & unlawful detention claims.

You know how honorary QCs are QC (Hon)? People made QC for political reasons should have to write QC (not a real one).
I was beginning to wonder if I was being unfair, especially after so many outraged "How can you say that about a Cambridge-educated barrister?!" messages.
But yes, further confirmation of what I had heard: