5 ms·

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

by guelo 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
      No one is contesting the private organization part. Just the wrong part of your post.
      - rayiner 9mo 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?
        ceejayoz 9mo ago
        You said the ABA had no "formal status". That bit was very clearly incorrect, as Texas's Supreme Court just revoked that formal status. (Incidentally, the original post about replacing the ABA wasn't mine, either.)
        rayiner 9mo ago
        My point above is that the ABA is the same kind of thing as the Federalist Society. They’re both private organizations. The ABA isn’t some sort of quasi-public body. The fact that the Texas Supreme Court previously relied on the ABA’s list of accredited schools doesn’t change what kind of thing the ABA is. In CS terms, the Texas Supreme Court rules just had a pointer to the ABA list. That doesn’t change the nature of the object to which it points.
- 5upplied_demand 9mo ago
  As the article clearly explains, the ABA had the formal status that the Texas Supreme Curt granted them in 1983. What we have now is a change of that policy, giving that power to a political body (an elected Supreme Court) without providing a reason. Doesn't feel like "small government" to me. > The all-Republican court hasn't given a reason for initiating the change, but it came after months of conflict between President Donald Trump, the ABA and the broader legal community.
  - LadyCailin 9mo ago
    Republicans have never been about small government, they just use that as a talking point against the government when it’s providing nice things that benefit everyone (including liberals, which they would happily shoot their own foot off if it meant some shrapnel hit a liberal), and their base is too ignorant or evil to care.
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    > Doesn't feel like "small government" to me. The "small government" GOP was a mistaken detour of the late 20th century that died precisely because it was susceptible to stupid ideas like outsourcing a core government function--accreditation in a profession deeply intertwined with government itself--to private parties. Lincoln's GOP was not a small government party, and neither is Trump's GOP.
    - 5upplied_demand 9mo ago
      Its fascinating to watch you twist yourself into knots justifying all types of contradictory actions after they have happened. You are certainly committed to the bit. This is another case where you failed to do any research and are provably false. The Republican Party of Texas wrote an actual party platform in 2024 and limited government is an explicitly stated part of that platform. [0] Since you brought up Trump, even though he isn't involved in this action. Here is a video of him from February 2025 stating that he is making government smaller. [1] I'm sure you will come back with some new red herring, but the evidence is here for others to view. [0] https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-RPT-Platform.pdf https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-RPT-Pla... [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ucen_wGy2mY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ucen_wGy2mY
- CalChris 9mo ago
  If the ABA had no formal status then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. In fact, the Department of Education formally recognizes the ABA as the accrediting body since 1923. In fairness, conservatives are trying to get rid of the Department of Education as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20170427221010/https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg7.html#law https://web.archive.org/web/20170427221010/https://www2.ed.g... I notice the ed.gov page has gone missing. I wonder why.

by guelo 9mo ago

rayiner 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
    No one is contesting the private organization part. Just the wrong part of your post.
    - rayiner 9mo 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?
      - ceejayoz 9mo ago
        You said the ABA had no "formal status". That bit was very clearly incorrect, as Texas's Supreme Court just revoked that formal status. (Incidentally, the original post about replacing the ABA wasn't mine, either.)
        rayiner 9mo ago
        My point above is that the ABA is the same kind of thing as the Federalist Society. They’re both private organizations. The ABA isn’t some sort of quasi-public body. The fact that the Texas Supreme Court previously relied on the ABA’s list of accredited schools doesn’t change what kind of thing the ABA is. In CS terms, the Texas Supreme Court rules just had a pointer to the ABA list. That doesn’t change the nature of the object to which it points.
5upplied_demand 9mo ago
As the article clearly explains, the ABA had the formal status that the Texas Supreme Curt granted them in 1983. What we have now is a change of that policy, giving that power to a political body (an elected Supreme Court) without providing a reason. Doesn't feel like "small government" to me. > The all-Republican court hasn't given a reason for initiating the change, but it came after months of conflict between President Donald Trump, the ABA and the broader legal community.
- LadyCailin 9mo ago
  Republicans have never been about small government, they just use that as a talking point against the government when it’s providing nice things that benefit everyone (including liberals, which they would happily shoot their own foot off if it meant some shrapnel hit a liberal), and their base is too ignorant or evil to care.
- rayiner 9mo ago
  > Doesn't feel like "small government" to me. The "small government" GOP was a mistaken detour of the late 20th century that died precisely because it was susceptible to stupid ideas like outsourcing a core government function--accreditation in a profession deeply intertwined with government itself--to private parties. Lincoln's GOP was not a small government party, and neither is Trump's GOP.
  - 5upplied_demand 9mo ago
    Its fascinating to watch you twist yourself into knots justifying all types of contradictory actions after they have happened. You are certainly committed to the bit. This is another case where you failed to do any research and are provably false. The Republican Party of Texas wrote an actual party platform in 2024 and limited government is an explicitly stated part of that platform. [0] Since you brought up Trump, even though he isn't involved in this action. Here is a video of him from February 2025 stating that he is making government smaller. [1] I'm sure you will come back with some new red herring, but the evidence is here for others to view. [0] https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-RPT-Platform.pdf https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-RPT-Pla... [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ucen_wGy2mY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ucen_wGy2mY
CalChris 9mo ago
If the ABA had no formal status then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. In fact, the Department of Education formally recognizes the ABA as the accrediting body since 1923. In fairness, conservatives are trying to get rid of the Department of Education as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20170427221010/https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg7.html#law https://web.archive.org/web/20170427221010/https://www2.ed.g... I notice the ed.gov page has gone missing. I wonder why.