Comments on: Second OT2009 Opinion–PC in Capital Case

By: DjDiverDan

DjDiverDan — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:40:34 +0000

As a licensed lawyer who refused to keep paying dues to the ABA starting in 1990 (when I was a “Biglaw Partner” – or at least an equity shareholder in a “Biglaw” Firm), it wasn’t the pro-criminal defendant bias that drove me away. Indeed, though I am generally a libertarian/conservative, my limited experience with the criminal justice system (at least in Texas, which I certainly hope is not representative) convinced me that there was a very heavy pro-prosecutor thumb on the scales of justice, and I generally supported whatever pro-criminal defendant positions the ABA took. No, what drove me away from the ABA was my own view that the ABA’s leadership had been taken over by a coalition of Plaintiffs’ Personal Injury Lawyers and the far left on issues like Abortion, Gay Rights, and Diversity. Frankly, if the ABA had stuck to its mission of representing the Bar generally, and kept out of the political arena on “culture war” issues, I’d probably still be paying dues. And for anyone who seriously believes that the ABA supports “Civil Rights”, you either failed to read the ABA’s Amicus Brief in Heller, or you don’t think the Second Amendment deals with any civil rights worthy of protection.

By: Mark N.

Mark N. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:51:09 +0000

I agree the ABA shouldn’t be given law-like authority, as a private organization, but I’m curious to what extent it does or doesn’t represent the American bar as a whole. Last I recall, its membership comprised more than half of the total American bar. It’s possible it’s a politically skewed half, but the main skew I’ve seen data on is a bias towards BigLaw partners, which is more of a bias within the profession rather than one that’s easy to place on the normal political spectrum.

It’s interesting that at one time, up until the 1960s or so, the ABA was mainly criticized for being too politically conservative. In particular, it consistently took positions in favor of big business against labor groups, and against antitrust enforcement.

By: Dave N

Dave N — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:16:23 +0000

troll_dc2: Is it not interesting that there was no dissent from any of the Court’s so-called liberal members?

I am guessing that if the Conference had not been unanimous, there would have been oral arguments rather than a summary reversal.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:21:14 +0000

Didn’t Roberts say something pretty similar in an opinion last year? Or maybe it was an oral argument transcript I saw.

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:57:08 +0000

Liberal Patrol:

The phrase “do not necessarily reflect the views of the American bar as a whole” can reasonably be read to mean that the ABA view is “different from that of the Federalist Society, whose views I tend to like a lot more, being the conservative pro-State/anti-defendant judge that I am.”

Unlike the ABA, the Federalist Society does not have a position on the appropriate level of representation in capital cases. I’m not sure how reasonable it is to read a statement as embracing something that does not exist.

By: One Man's View

One Man's View — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:52:56 +0000

LP — Make you a deal. When the courts start citing Federalist Society opinion as controlling law I’ll object to that too.

By: Mike B.

Mike B. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:45:26 +0000

Love the Talladegha Nights reference.
Also PLR made me laugh out loud.

By: Liberal Patrol

Liberal Patrol — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:25:01 +0000

It may be worth noting that the ABA is usually considered a “liberal” organization–you know, pro-civil liberties in CrimPro cases (which means pro-defendant), that kind of thing (in addition to their other “liberal” views related to diversity in the legal profession, etc.)

The phrase “do not necessarily reflect the views of the American bar as a whole” can reasonably be read to mean that the ABA view is “different from that of the Federalist Society, whose views I tend to like a lot more, being the conservative pro-State/anti-defendant judge that I am.”

(As an aside, I think the ABA is great and generally agree with their policy positions. Of course, many lawyers do not. Just like some lawyers are Ds, some are Rs, and some not party-affiliated.)

By: PLR

PLR — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:13:39 +0000

Speaking of groups with limited membership that do not necessarily represent the views of American lawyers as a whole…

By: troll_dc2

troll_dc2 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:33:55 +0000

Is it not interesting that there was no dissent from any of the Court’s so-called liberal members?