5 ms·

“ The change means law school graduates who want to practice in Texas are no longer required to attend an ABA-accredited school. The power to approve those law

“ The change means law school graduates who want to practice in Texas are no longer required to attend an ABA-accredited school. The power to approve those law schools now rests solely with the state's highest civil court.” It’s for control, more precisely political control

baggachipz 10mo ago
Does this mean a "No woke lawyers" rule in Texas? I'm asking in all seriousness, I could see such a rule happening.
- tw04 10mo ago
  That’s exactly what the end goal is. It’ll only be a matter of time before Texas has schools that don’t even attempt to teach impartiality.
- vineyardmike 10mo ago
  Considering they explicitly cited DEI requirements as their impetus for change, this feels like a natural progression.
observationist 10mo ago
Conversely, it's about the state of Texas asserting control over an unaccountable third party who does things that run counter to the interests of the State and people of Texas. If the state's highest civil court misbehaves, the people of Texas have recourse. If the ABA misbehaves, the people of Texas can do... nothing. From my perspective, I'd rather have a body held accountable to the people over which they are wielding power. Sometimes government makes sense.
- masklinn 10mo ago
  > If the ABA misbehaves, the people of Texas can do... nothing. Nothing precludes suing the ABA, it's a professional association not magic pixie dust.
- KittenInABox 10mo ago
  I want to agree with you, however, how do we guarantee that the people of Texas have recourse via their government? Didn't the Texas state government have national headlines recently to enact anti-democratic gerrymandering?
  - guelo 10mo ago
    Correct, there is no recourse, they've used their 30 years of hard-core ideological Republican uni-party control to remove any possibility of opposition. Besides gerrymandering they're constantly attacking Houston's ability to self govern, kicking democrat voters off the rolls, making it harder for city residents to vote.
- yndoendo 10mo ago
  Texas is a state that do not pay their elected officials enough money to live off of. It is designed to support the wealth and not the poor. A wealth elected official does not need a second job but a poor one does. This leads to disproportional balance in power between the working class and the wealth. [0] https://salaries.texastribune.org/departments/house-of-representatives/positions/elected-official/ https://salaries.texastribune.org/departments/house-of-repre...
- gamblor956 10mo ago
  Struggling to understand here, what is this mystical malfeasance that the ABA has done? All it does is set minimum standards for the state bar exams and publish best practices for state bar associations.
- rainsford 10mo ago
  > If the ABA misbehaves, the people of Texas can do... nothing. That seems like a very interesting perspective to offer in response to an article about the government of Texas stripping the ABA of the ability to approve law schools. While it's not obvious this action was in response to any particular misbehavior by the ABA, clearly the possibility of such action would serve as an accountability mechanism that offered recourse to the good people of Texas in the event of any misbehavior.
guelo 10mo ago
Correct it's part of a multi decade right wing effort to replace the ABA with the ideological Federalist Society. Trump's judges were the first that did not get ABA recommendations but were all Federalists. In Texas it seems more of a naked power grab. They want no ethics, no standards, no expertise, just raw political power.
- rayiner 10mo ago
  “Replacing the ABA” implies that the ABA has some formal status to begin with. It doesn’t. The ABA is just a private organization.
  - ceejayoz 10mo ago
    The headline and the contents of the article make it quite clear that's not true. > The Texas Supreme Court decided which law schools would satisfy law licensure requirements until 1983, when the court gave that responsibility to the ABA.
    - rayiner 10mo ago
      That doesn’t change the fact that the ABA is a private organization. The court shouldn’t have delegated a government function to a private body in the first place.
      - ceejayoz 10mo ago
        No one is contesting the private organization part. Just the wrong part of your post.
        rayiner 10mo ago
        Your original post is premised on the implication that the ABA has some sort of public status. Otherwise, it makes no sense. It's like saying "there's a right wing effort to replace Coke with Pepsi." Okay, so what?

baggachipz 10mo ago

Does this mean a "No woke lawyers" rule in Texas? I'm asking in all seriousness, I could see such a rule happening.

tw04 10mo ago
That’s exactly what the end goal is. It’ll only be a matter of time before Texas has schools that don’t even attempt to teach impartiality.
vineyardmike 10mo ago
Considering they explicitly cited DEI requirements as their impetus for change, this feels like a natural progression.

observationist 10mo ago

Conversely, it's about the state of Texas asserting control over an unaccountable third party who does things that run counter to the interests of the State and people of Texas. If the state's highest civil court misbehaves, the people of Texas have recourse. If the ABA misbehaves, the people of Texas can do... nothing. From my perspective, I'd rather have a body held accountable to the people over which they are wielding power. Sometimes government makes sense.

masklinn 10mo ago
> If the ABA misbehaves, the people of Texas can do... nothing. Nothing precludes suing the ABA, it's a professional association not magic pixie dust.
KittenInABox 10mo ago
I want to agree with you, however, how do we guarantee that the people of Texas have recourse via their government? Didn't the Texas state government have national headlines recently to enact anti-democratic gerrymandering?
- guelo 10mo ago
  Correct, there is no recourse, they've used their 30 years of hard-core ideological Republican uni-party control to remove any possibility of opposition. Besides gerrymandering they're constantly attacking Houston's ability to self govern, kicking democrat voters off the rolls, making it harder for city residents to vote.
yndoendo 10mo ago
Texas is a state that do not pay their elected officials enough money to live off of. It is designed to support the wealth and not the poor. A wealth elected official does not need a second job but a poor one does. This leads to disproportional balance in power between the working class and the wealth. [0] https://salaries.texastribune.org/departments/house-of-representatives/positions/elected-official/ https://salaries.texastribune.org/departments/house-of-repre...
gamblor956 10mo ago
Struggling to understand here, what is this mystical malfeasance that the ABA has done? All it does is set minimum standards for the state bar exams and publish best practices for state bar associations.
rainsford 10mo ago
> If the ABA misbehaves, the people of Texas can do... nothing. That seems like a very interesting perspective to offer in response to an article about the government of Texas stripping the ABA of the ability to approve law schools. While it's not obvious this action was in response to any particular misbehavior by the ABA, clearly the possibility of such action would serve as an accountability mechanism that offered recourse to the good people of Texas in the event of any misbehavior.

guelo 10mo ago

Correct it's part of a multi decade right wing effort to replace the ABA with the ideological Federalist Society. Trump's judges were the first that did not get ABA recommendations but were all Federalists. In Texas it seems more of a naked power grab. They want no ethics, no standards, no expertise, just raw political power.

rayiner 10mo ago
“Replacing the ABA” implies that the ABA has some formal status to begin with. It doesn’t. The ABA is just a private organization.
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  The headline and the contents of the article make it quite clear that's not true. > The Texas Supreme Court decided which law schools would satisfy law licensure requirements until 1983, when the court gave that responsibility to the ABA.
  - rayiner 10mo ago
    That doesn’t change the fact that the ABA is a private organization. The court shouldn’t have delegated a government function to a private body in the first place.
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      No one is contesting the private organization part. Just the wrong part of your post.
      - rayiner 10mo ago
        Your original post is premised on the implication that the ABA has some sort of public status. Otherwise, it makes no sense. It's like saying "there's a right wing effort to replace Coke with Pepsi." Okay, so what?