Okay, it's another serious or quasi-serious post. I know, I promised myself I wouldn't do it, but since I have a forum and it's not like anyone is reading this anyway, I'm going to break my own rule (again). I'll try not to make it a regular thing.
So, the ABA is chastising President Bush for not following the law. Though, as far as I'm know there are people on both sides of the political spectrum, who aren't sure whether or not any law has been broken. Apparently, the ABA has decided from on high that they are the almighty arbiter of all that is and is not the law and that the terrorist surveillance program or whatever you want to call it is illegal. (I dislike the term domestic spying as, quite frankly, I think it's erroneous. My flight from NYC to London is international even when I'm standing in line at JFK. To imply that somehow because one end of the conversation is domestic and the eavesdropping may [I don't think we know this for sure] take place in the US it is a domestic call, is just plain wrong in my view.)
Well, Thom Lambert over at Truth on the Market, in an off-topic post is blasting the ABA. Not so much for this vote, but for their action earlier in the week which makes them look incredibly hypocritical. In deciding to push affirmative action standards, the ABA voted that only results will count if schools want to maintain their accreditation (which is critical, you can't really be a successful law school without it).
The ABA went so far as to say:
The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with Standard 211.
So much for all that follow-the-law bravado, heh?