The ABA and the State of Wisconsin legal establishment warns the U.S. President not to criticize the hand that feeds them

After President Trump publicly called Judge Robart who made an illegal decision in an immigration case a "so-called judge" the ABA President claimed that criticism of a judge by the President was uncalled for and somehow "attacking" a judge is attacking the U.S. Constitution.

That is the same reaction from the ABA as came when President Trump criticized federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel for conflicts of interest (rightfully, see here, here and here). 

ABA President's feelings about criticism of a judge by President Trump in February of 2017 were seconded by a collective statement of 52 Wisconsin Bar governors:

It is interesting that the statement of the Wisconsin Bar governors does not reflect the opinion of the all Wisconsin attorneys - for example, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney Michael Cicchini protested the protest in stating that the Wisconsin bar "governors" did not express his ideas and violated people's Freedom of Speech rights when they urged upon the public not to criticize judges, public servants.

Time to separate political activities of the Wisconsin's organized bar from its regulatory activities - like Arizona attorneys are trying to do now?

As to criticism of judges - the legal profession's position in viciously attacking the President and calling criticism of another branch of the government, "coincidentally", the branch that controls the legal profession's own livelihood, is not only disingenuous - it is shamefully hypocritical.

It is like saying - have your free press, have your social media and blogging, let's use it at large to attack those we do not like, but, do not dare to bite the hand that feeds us.

Well, maybe, if the judiciary feeds and controls the legal profession, licensed attorneys, who may be disbarred or suspended - and many are - for criticism of judges, are not very believable in trying to persuade the public that criticizing a judge is somehow inappropriate and is an equivalent of an attack on the Constitution?

When you see dirt in your house, you clean it, not sweep it under the rug.

And that includes exposing and trying to bring accountability upon judges committing misconduct - the way the person criticizing a judge understands it.

Stifling criticism, with even the most benign of intentions never helped.

Here, intentions of the legal profession are far from benign - those are acts of faithful slaves protecting their masters.