(The Lion) — The heads of two Kansas City bar associations refuse to elaborate on their full-throated written support of the American Bar Association’s one-sided attack on President Trump, conveniently couched as support for the “rule of law.”

Sent as a press release to members, the letter from the Kansas City Metro Bar Association (KCMBA) and the Kansas City Metro Bar Foundation (KCMBF) was in response to an American Bar Association (ABA) press release taking on Trump.

That release complained about President Donald Trump’s public questioning of recent liberal judicial decisions that have reversed his administration’s actions. In one case, Trump called on the judge to face impeachment for his decision.

“If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” wrote Trump on Truth Social.

The ABA was immediately peeved by Trump’s comments.

“Targeting judges personally or threatening to remove them because they rule a certain way has never been acceptable,” said the ABA. “Such efforts are intended to intimidate judges and our courts and weaken public trust and confidence in our judicial system.”

The Lion reported how previous attempts by the ABA to interfere in politics resulted in a Trump administration prohibition from allowing ABA lawyers to be appointed to the Federal Trade Commission.

But that didn’t stop attorneys Ronald Nguyen and Scott Gyllenborg, heads of the KCMBF and the KCMBA, respectively, from echoing the ABA position in their own letter.

“As the ABA clearly stated, efforts to diminish public confidence in the courts and disparage legal professionals undermine the very foundation of our justice system,” wrote Nguyen and Gyllenborg. “KCMBA and KCMBF stand firm in protecting the role of judges and the courts, advocating for the right to counsel, ensuring due process, and defending the freedoms of speech and association that are fundamental to a free and just society.”

But members of the bar who forwarded the KC bar’s letter asked The Lion:

“Where were they when conservative justices were being physically attacked and Biden refused them protection? Where were they when Biden ignored court rulings and came out in favor of packing the court?”

Good questions.

Indeed, Joe Biden criticized decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court when he was president, calling conservative-leaning rulings “dangerous and extreme decisions,. Yet the ABA, Nguyen and Gyllenborg were apparently silent about those attempts to “diminish public confidence in the courts.”

Biden was so outraged by the threat to “democracy” because of those conservative decisions, which undid decades of liberal dominance on the court, that he tacitly allowed Democrats, under then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to present legislation to seat more liberal Supreme Court justices, even as he lamely added “he wasn’t a fan” of the court-packing plan.

“I don’t know that that’s a good idea or bad idea. I think it’s an idea that should be considered,” Pelosi said of the high court expansion plan, mimicking Biden’s benign neglect of the judiciary. “And I think the president’s taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It’s a big step.”

Both Pelosi and Biden used weasel-worded answers to allow the ABA to claim, presumably with a straight face, that Biden wasn’t in favor of the plan, even as Pelosi introduced the legislation.

Today, the ABA, Nguyen and Gyllenborg, want you to believe that the combined strength of the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House is insufficient to keep a bill on court-packing from reaching the floor of the U.S. House.

If the bill wasn’t an attempt to pack the court with more liberals, it was at least an attempt to intimidate the court, clearly.

Then there is the issue of the “independence of the judiciary,” which has been subjected to “attacks” as mentioned by the ABA.

Punitive measures promised by liberals designed to promote “ethics” reform in the Supreme Court were oddly designed under Biden just to target conservative members of the court, noted the House Judiciary Committee. Some of the actions called for were investigations into Justice Clarence Thomas and the filing of articles of impeachment against Thomas and his fellow Justice Samuel Alito.

“The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a legitimacy crisis,” wrote uber-liberal lobbyist organization Data for Progress. “Previous Data for Progress polling has found that voters are concerned by the power of unelected judges and think that the Supreme Court should follow an enforceable code of conduct,” before adding “Justices Thomas and Alito should be impeached.”

Again, Biden and Pelosi weren’t powerful enough to stop a radical Brooklyn member from threatening the Supreme Court with impeachment from the floor of the House.

Same goes for the ABA, Nguyen and Gyllenborg, who were all silent as the court was “intimidated.”

Then there was the violence against the courts under Biden.

Even after the assassination attempt on President Trump in July 2024 as he was campaigning to return to the White House, the head of the House Judiciary Committee felt compelled to send a letter to Biden’s U.S. attorney general warning that not enough was being done to protect Supreme Court justices who were enduring violent protests outside their homes.

Social media users even doxxed the justices so that violent protesters could find their homes more easily. NBC News championed this dangerous tactic, as if the perpetrators were heroes.

But ABA, Nguyen and Gyllenborg?

Silent, again.

So, The Lion passed along those members’ questions to Nguyen and Gyllenborg, because now they seem more talkative, to see if the lawyers could add some context to their letter. With a response, perhaps people could understand the legal arguments why impeachment against conservatives is due process, yet called intimidation against liberals, and why violent speech and actions are First Amendment rights for progressive protesters, but free speech is a threat to democracy when practiced by conservatives.

Both Nguyen and Gyllenborg declined to comment, pleading for their right to remain silent, while coordinating their answers – which were exactly the same, except that they arrived just one minute apart.

“We appreciate your review of the American Bar Association’s statement supporting the rule of law and our support of that statement. The Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Foundation has nothing more to add,” wrote Nguyen.

Case rested.