2 ms·
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 w
by 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?
- ceejayoz 10mo agoYou 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 10mo agoMy 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.