-
Archives
- August 2022 (1)
- November 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (1)
- May 2021 (1)
- September 2020 (1)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (1)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (1)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (1)
- November 2017 (1)
- October 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (6)
- May 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (1)
- November 2015 (1)
- August 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (1)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (2)
- March 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (5)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (8)
- August 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (6)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (4)
- November 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (2)
- August 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (2)
- May 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (21)
- March 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (2)
- November 2007 (4)
- October 2007 (1)
- September 2007 (1)
- August 2007 (3)
- July 2007 (6)
- June 2007 (3)
- May 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (1)
- March 2007 (1)
- February 2007 (1)
- January 2007 (4)
- December 2006 (1)
- November 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (7)
- May 2006 (8)
Bar None
The American Bar Association is currently lobbying in favor of the Akaka Bill, having sent a letter this week to every US Senator in favor of its passage. This is much less impressive than it sounds.  Much like The Simpsons or David Lee Roth, the ABA is a shadow of its former self, living off the credibility of a name that too few have realized no longer carries any guarantee of quality or professionalism.
So when did the ABA jump the shark? It’s hard to say . . . it’s really one of those incremental things. Until one day you wake up and they’re applying purely political considerations to their evaluation of judicial nominees. Among those people who follow such things, it’s common knowledge that the ABA no longer has any credibility as a neutral arbiter of constitutional interpretation or judicial ability. Now, it functions more like a mouthpiece for the left wing of the Democratic party. Take the aforementioned letter to the US Senate on the Akaka Bill. One might imagine that the American Bar Association would present a neutral evaluation of the constitutionality and possible objections to the bill. Don’t make me laugh. In essence, it’s little more than a distillation of the same arguments presented by the pro-Akaka Lobby. In fact, it bears such a similarity to an OHA column that one hopes the ABA didn’t spend too much money to produce such a propagandist rehash.
Of course, that’s how the game is played nowadays . . . bias disguised as neutral analysis is par for the course in modern politics. It’s just a shame that such politics-as-usual methods are preventing a true debate on the merits of the bill and its possible impact on Hawaii.
Tags: Akaka bill
This entry was posted on October 22, 2010, 7:40 am and is filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.