4 ms·

While I wholly agree with the premise, I feel the ABA has lost much of its authority as it has become an extremely partisan group. Its leaders donate lots of mo

While I wholly agree with the premise, I feel the ABA has lost much of its authority as it has become an extremely partisan group. Its leaders donate lots of money to Democrat candidates, its criticisms—while often valid—are entirely one-sided, and recently the ABA has been sued for illegal "reverse" racial discrimination. As an attorney, I will say I don't know any fellow attorneys who are currently members of the ABA who are right of center.

pentel-0_5 2y ago
The language of rationalizing fascism.
jaybrendansmith 2y ago
Ad-hominem and irrelevant to the facts. As you say, the premise is still spot-on here.
mcphage 2y ago
> its criticisms—while often valid—are entirely one-sided If the criticisms are valid but one sided, then is it a problem with the ABA, or is that the two sides aren’t equivalent?
- toast0 2y ago
  Not enough information. The ABA may choose not to issue criticism of the other side, even though their would be valid criticism available. Or the other side might not do anything the ABA could object to.
legitster 2y ago
This logic is infuriating. One party is blatantly opposed to courts and legality and law. The idea that the ABA should be obligated to be non-partisan against their interests makes no sense. Nobody "owes" both sides anything. This logic would also not make sense if leveled at the NRA, farm groups, etc - or any other group with a partisan lean. If one side is just plain wrong - they are not owed 50/50 representation. And accusing them of "reverse discrimination" is ironic if you are also going to criticize them for not forcing inclusion of a political party. To put it another way: if the American Marxist Party was to suddenly become an important party, would the ABA gain authority by catering to them? In the name of non-partisanship? It makes no sense to me.
- notacoward 2y ago
  Demanding that the ABA treat the Imperial Presidency folks the same as normal mostly-law-abiding citizens is affirmative action for despots and criminals. It's "both sides" taken to an absurd extreme; anyone who really cares about the rule of law (however imperfect that law or its administration might be) would reject that idea.
nabla9 2y ago
They are not one-sided by taking one side. GOP is wrong. It's like saying that the priest is one sided because he is not giving Satan the same treatment as Jesus.
- mminer237 2y ago
  While the GOP is wrong here, that doesn't mean every criticism of them is true or that the Democrats are flawless. Calling out one party's illegalities while ignoring the other's is literally being one-sided. I guess it's tangential to this article, but it's sad to see the ABA being essentially the left-wing version of the Federalist Society.

pentel-0_5 2y ago

The language of rationalizing fascism.

jaybrendansmith 2y ago

Ad-hominem and irrelevant to the facts. As you say, the premise is still spot-on here.

mcphage 2y ago

> its criticisms—while often valid—are entirely one-sided If the criticisms are valid but one sided, then is it a problem with the ABA, or is that the two sides aren’t equivalent?

toast0 2y ago
Not enough information. The ABA may choose not to issue criticism of the other side, even though their would be valid criticism available. Or the other side might not do anything the ABA could object to.

legitster 2y ago

This logic is infuriating. One party is blatantly opposed to courts and legality and law. The idea that the ABA should be obligated to be non-partisan against their interests makes no sense. Nobody "owes" both sides anything. This logic would also not make sense if leveled at the NRA, farm groups, etc - or any other group with a partisan lean. If one side is just plain wrong - they are not owed 50/50 representation. And accusing them of "reverse discrimination" is ironic if you are also going to criticize them for not forcing inclusion of a political party. To put it another way: if the American Marxist Party was to suddenly become an important party, would the ABA gain authority by catering to them? In the name of non-partisanship? It makes no sense to me.

notacoward 2y ago
Demanding that the ABA treat the Imperial Presidency folks the same as normal mostly-law-abiding citizens is affirmative action for despots and criminals. It's "both sides" taken to an absurd extreme; anyone who really cares about the rule of law (however imperfect that law or its administration might be) would reject that idea.

nabla9 2y ago

They are not one-sided by taking one side. GOP is wrong. It's like saying that the priest is one sided because he is not giving Satan the same treatment as Jesus.

mminer237 2y ago
While the GOP is wrong here, that doesn't mean every criticism of them is true or that the Democrats are flawless. Calling out one party's illegalities while ignoring the other's is literally being one-sided. I guess it's tangential to this article, but it's sad to see the ABA being essentially the left-wing version of the Federalist Society.