According to these drafters (who apparently live in an alternate universe), it is that the ABA is less focused on political advocacy.
Of course, they are obviously and completely delusional out of touch with the real world, but beyond the basic incompetence of their draft is the other issue they completely miss, which is the ABA's blatant discrimination against older lawyers.
The ACS appears to operate on "donations" as opposed to formal membership dues, and the Federalist Society will admit any lawyer, new or old, for $50.
By contrast, we all know about the ABA dues structure, which affords BigLaw newbies with $190,000 starting salaries a virtual "pass" while jacking up senior lawyers with far lesser incomes for $450 in annual dues. In short, the ABA deliberately and flagrantly maintains a dues structure that is centered around an efficient proxy for age discrimination. By ABA's own proposed Rule 8.4(g), no ethical lawyer would maintain membership in such an ageist, discriminatory organization, and doing so should be subject to discipline.
For the same reason, neither should any federal or state judge be seen as supporting this discriminatory organization. Quite irrespective of ABA's constant, radical, leftist political advocacy, its blatant and unapologetic discrimination against senior lawyers should render judicial approval or endorsement of this organization unacceptable. Judges who would not join an organization that charges black people more, or charges Hispanics more, or charges women more should not join this organization that openly and notoriously charges older lawyers more.
Unfortunately, and law be damned, it appears that only judges are to be allowed to comment on this bullshit travesty of ABA-ass-kissing-infamy, notwithstanding its facial impropriety and absence of support in reason. The rest of us are evidently deemed too stupid, or more probably, too old and stupid, to be heard on such questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment