Two State Bars Relinquish ABA Delegate Seats

The American Bar Association's radical political agenda continues to bring home unforeseen consequences. Even as discussion continues as to whether judges may ethically be members of the ABA, the California and North Carolina Bar Associations have been relinquishing state representative seats in the ABA House of Delegates. At issue for these two, mandatory bar associations is the application of the Supreme Court's 1990 Keller precedent, holding that mandatory dues cannot be used for political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.

As the State Bar of California noted last year, 33 of the 57 agenda items before the ABA House of Delegates at the 2019 Annual Meeting were matters concerning political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. ABA can try to deny it. ABA can try to maintain that it is "nonpartisan." However, everybody living in the real world knows the truth, and the State Bar of California has cogently stated that truth.

Now ABA is going to study the issue of what this all means for state bar representation in the failing ABA organization. Bob Carlson is in charge of the "working group." The same Bob Carlson who, as ABA President, tried to derail Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination by calling for suspension of confirmation proceedings pending an FBI investigation of the nominee. The worth and usefulness of this working group seems questionable. Carlson claims, "The goal is to get input from as many different folks as possible," but, as it is an ABA "working group," all those folks will be ABA members, parroting the views deemed acceptable in the existing ABA echo-chamber.

Meanwhile, still not on the table at all is any consideration of ABA actually desisting from its radical political agenda. Resolutions currently before the House of Delegates for action at the Mid-Year Meeting include several gun control measures. To screw with anyone who might want to purchase a firearm, the proposed measures call for legislation requiring all purchasers to apply for a permit and be fingerprinted. To screw with anyone who has a firearm already, the proposed measures call for imposition of mandatory "safe storage" requirements. It is not clear what any of this has to do with ABA's alleged mission of "defending liberty" or "pursuing justice." Obviously, this is also yet another instance of "political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services."

At times, it is hard to ascertain whether the leftist radicals who have hijacked the ABA are simply oblivious to the point of insensibility, or whether they are intentionally trying to crash the organization into the ground at the maximum possible velocity.


http://abajournal.com/news/article/aba-house-forms-working-group-to-review-state-bar-involvement