DOJ has finally kicked the ABA to the curb!!!
The Justice Department on Thursday formally notified the American Bar Association that it will no longer comply with its ratings process for judicial nominees, the result of what it argues is a biased system and one that “invariably and demonstrably” favors nominees put forth by Democratic administrations.
The letter, sent by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to ABA President William R. Bay, was previewed exclusively to Fox News. It marks the latest escalation in a protracted legal fight that Republicans have waged against the nation’s largest association of legal workers.
Full article, HERE from Fox News.
And here is the letter!
It has been known for a long time that the ABA, in collusion with the Dems, were only passing nominees that met the Dems criteria, and any conservatives suddenly had ‘stuff’ that should have been buried being brought to light.
Of course the ABA always denied doing that, but it was amazing how bar records, etc. seemed to just pop out of nowhere…
Yeah, right…
And of course the questionnaires were always just a ‘bit’ slanted… But you couldn’t complain.
Well, now they don’t get access, and the playing field is now much more level!
Never understood why the DOJ was letting a union/special interest group set policy and personnel for them.
Me? I’d take the ABA list and invert it. Look at the judicial candidates that the ABA most hates. Weed through those and you’ll find the pearls.
And, conversely, look at the ones the ABA wants and gives glowing recommendations. I mean, full criminal and financial forensic investigations. Because if the ABA likes them, then they’re either terminally stupid, corrupt as a dem politician or both.
You described my time saver.
If Pelosi/ Schumer/ Obama is for it, I’m against it
If they hate something, inevitably I am going to be for it.
Try it! sure saves a lot of research time.
Needed to be done, however, it will only last until a Dem President is in the White House.
X2
Huzzah!! Groups with an obvious agenda have had too much influence on too many things. Pruning them off like this action, or with the FDA are much needed.
Beans- Agreed!
Mark- LOL, good point!
NRW- Sigh…you’re probably right.
MC- Yep!
Congress is filled with attorneys. They can stop such things with laws, but it’s a big club, and we’re not in it.
Now do the same for the AMA. Nothing they have to say, pronounce or announce can reliably be taken as impartial medical advice. We’ve learned a lot since idiots like Fauci tried to rule our lives and the AMA was intimately complicit.
Here in West Oz, many years ago when I got into med school, the local equivalent of the AMA was allowed to determine the number of places offered in the only med school in the state.
At a time when they themselves said that an additional 600+ doctors per year were required to meet demand, they only allowed 140 admissions.
Guess where the extras came from. Yep, you got it – Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
Now we even have medical (and dental) clinics where they ONLY speak Mandarin Chinese – English isn’t POSSIBLE when talking to them.
Jess- Excellent point!
CT- Oh HELL yes!!!
Late comment , related , Why is the SPLC still cited as a source of unbiased repute . Throw in the ACLU on that list too.
Basically, after certain actions, ABA accredited law schools should be shut down entirely, or supplemented with other source of accreditation law schools, AND anyone should be able to take the Bar exam. Sad to say, but probably the Bar exam needs to be dummied down, so that anyone can pass it, also.
The whole point of the formal legal system, and of the law professions, has been endangered by stupid law school idiots saying that lawyers can discriminate in what clients they honestly act as proxies for. We don’t want to formally legitimize lynching lawyers and judges as a remedy, so our main alternative is to open up the profession of law so that it is less credible to the public that the whole business is informally colluding to improperly discriminate. I would use the term conspire, expect that such has a precise legal meaning, that is substantially more challenging to prove.
AMA likewise has serious problems as the accreditation source for medical schools, and university influence on medical schools is potentially extremely problematic. I’m less confident in changing the residency/board certification scheme.
If one is has a deep or basic understanding of Austrian economics, it may be straightforward to discuss Hoyt’s assertion that the PPACA changed the student loan process in such way as to make all university professional credentials a problem for those professions, and not simply the AMA and ABA ones. (I generally buy Hoyt’s argument, but one element of it rests on reading some federal law that I have not personally read my self.)
My general view is that pro se law suits should be able to recover damages from the AMA for covid and for high medical school fees, and that pro se lawsuits should be able to recover damages from the AMA and from the Democratic party for Anti-Fa and BLM. (This being based on my understanding of RICO, and on whether certain theories of certain qualifying acts are in fact true.) I think lawyers should be able to recover damages from law schools for high fees under RICO. I think the restricted access to the field, and the insider dealing is used to avoid excessively burdening the judges with even higher caseload of frivolous cases in a way that is improper restraint of trade.
The accountants and engineers may have managed to avoid serious issues so far, I literally cannot tell.