As an attorney, I will say I don't know any fellow attorneys who are currently members of the ABA who are right of center.
It's like saying that the priest is one sided because he is not giving Satan the same treatment as Jesus.
I guess it's tangential to this article, but it's sad to see the ABA being essentially the left-wing version of the Federalist Society.
If the criticisms are valid but one sided, then is it a problem with the ABA, or is that the two sides aren’t equivalent?
Or the other side might not do anything the ABA could object to.
One party is blatantly opposed to courts and legality and law. The idea that the ABA should be obligated to be non-partisan against their interests makes no sense. Nobody "owes" both sides anything. This logic would also not make sense if leveled at the NRA, farm groups, etc - or any other group with a partisan lean.
If one side is just plain wrong - they are not owed 50/50 representation. And accusing them of "reverse discrimination" is ironic if you are also going to criticize them for not forcing inclusion of a political party.
To put it another way: if the American Marxist Party was to suddenly become an important party, would the ABA gain authority by catering to them? In the name of non-partisanship? It makes no sense to me.