Federal Judge: Bush's Election Like Mussolini's, Hitler's (Leftist Judiciary)

NewsMax ^ | 6/21/04 | Carl Limbacher

[wagglebee]

federal judge has followed his leftist compatriots down a steep slope, and compared the current president of the United States with Hitler and Mussolini, reports the New York Sun.

Not only does he call the election of George W. Bush in 2000 - through the electoral process upon which this country's elections are based - illegitimate, Guido Calabresi went on to juxtapose President Bush with two of the most vile dictators the world has ever known.

In Calabresi's own words: "In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States ... somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power. That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush versus Gore. It put somebody in power.”

Calabresi, from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, continued: "The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy,” he told a group of like-minded liberal lawyers.

The Sun reports, "The allusion drew audible gasps from some in the luncheon crowd at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society."

But Calabresi didn't stop there. He was just getting started: "The king of Italy had the right to put Mussolini in, though he had not won an election, and make him prime minister. That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in. I am not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler. I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual," the judge said.

Well, of course he's not suggesting Bush is like Hitler! He's merely comparing the two; likening, equating, paralleling, relating ... but he would never say Bush is Hitler. Of course not.

And was he finished? Did he stop at his "comparison"? Not a chance. Calabresi then said that President Bush should be cast out of office, not because of "politics" but for the "structural reassertion of democracy."

How a former dean of the Yale Law School can forget that we live in a constitutional republic is beyond the ability of educated Americans to comprehend, but that didn't stop the judge from begrudging the president acting like the president, and forgetting that it's the Electoral College, not the popular vote, that counts in America.

In fact, the Electoral College was specifically set up to limit the power of populous states to overcome other states in a national election.

In the case of Election 2000, this system had the unfortunate effect of incurring the wrath of the liberal establishment, which was incensed that it couldn't simply win the popular vote by taking the most populous counties and thereby take the whole election, despite the electoral votes of the rest of America.

The Sun writes that Calabresi, much to the delight of his audience, mirrored this still-festering liberal chagrin when he told his audience that Bush should not be availing himself of the powers of the presidency because Bush lacked a "compelling electoral mandate from the public."

In other words, it's the old Democratic saw that "Bush isn't president because he didn't win the popular vote." Right. He only won that pesky "electoral vote" thingy in that nettlesome, Democrat-reviled document called the Constitution of the United States of America.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, put it best when he told the Sun there is no reason to limit Bush’s authority because he did not win the popular vote in 2000.

"To say that a person who comes in under an Electoral College vote but not a majority of the popular vote and they’re somehow relegated to president-minus ... is a very dangerous precedent," said Mr. Sekulow.

Dangerous to the republic for which we stand - which won’t be standing for long if judges like Guido Calabresi continue to "interpret" our Constitution however they see fit.

[wagglebee]

This is absurd, this moron needs to be impeached, at the very least for being incompetent and lacking any ability to remain impartial.

[muawiyah]

Is Judge Calabresi a Syndicalist or Mafia?

[PhiKapMom]

Clinton got 43% of the popular vote the first time -- bet he didn't say anything about that!

[A.A. Cunningham]

AUDIENCE GASPS AS JUDGE LIKENS ELECTION OF BUSH TO RISE OF IL DUCE

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

NEVER FORGET that it was the morning after her being elected a U.S. Senator in November 2000 that HILLARY declared War on our Electoral College...

saying that her 1st U.S. Senate Bill would be to ELIMINATE it.

The Enemy is now Within...
and always has been.

.

[Paul Atreides]

The left would be unable to put together a barely coherent thought if they couldn't invoke Hitler, when speaking of conservatives.

I wish we had a time machine, so that we could drop them off for a day in a Nazi concentration camp and see how much they invoke Hitler when we get them back.

[NRA2BFree]

Can he be impeached? This traitor's got to go.

[goldstategop]

But he won't be cause Republicans in Congress are gutless cowards afraid to uphold the Constitution. They won't even bring up a bill that would strip judges of their ability to rewrite the Constitution up for a vote. With friends like them, we don't need enemies...

[ArmyBratproud]

This judge should be removed from the bench immediately.
This is a Federal judge who has shown extreme bias.
And there are issues that he would have say on that may even affect laws backed or proposed by the Bush Administration.
There is NO WAY that anyone could believe that this judge would decide case issues in good faith.
Issues are coming up through the appeals courts on things like the Patriot Act.
The Federal Judiciary is a mess as it is. This dumb-ss judge just makes it worse. One only knows what how judge a--gnome would rule on 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment issues.

[Intolerant in NJ]

That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush versus Gore. It put somebody in power.” ...C-Span carried an excellent AEI seminar on the 2000 election and Florida this morning - a number of journalists, scholars, and researchers, including John Lott, reviewed followup studies on the election. Because of the constant repetition of the lie that "the polls have closed in Florida" by the major networks between 8 and 9 PM when in fact the polls in the heavily republican panhandle were still open, the vote there fell off to such an extent that projections from earlier voting indicated that Bush probably would have received up to 10,000 more votes had the media not highjacked the process. Moreover, recounts of the votes conducted both as Gore and the Florida Supreme Court had wanted before SCOTUS stepped in showed that Bush still would have won the election in Florida, in one case with nearly 1000 more votes than the official count.

The Supreme Court put no one in power who wouldn't have been put in power without their necessary intervention......

[rintense]

Not only does he call the election of George W. Bush in 2000 - through the electoral process upon which this country's elections are based - illegitimate

Ok, then when Bush wins in November, he should be- according to this guy's twisted mind- eligible to run AGAIN in 2008.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Paging Orrin G. Hatch

United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-5225
Fax: (202) 224-9102

[wagglebee]

My understanding is that Federal judges are not supposed to step into the political fray, except as required in matters before the court. I realize that many judges speak and write about Constitutional matters (notably Scalia), but to comment on a recent or current event is wrong. Remember that Scalia recused himself from the recent Pledge of Allegiance case.

Whats most disturbing is the fact that this moron is in the 2nd Circuit (NYC!) where a great many cases relevant to national security are likely to wind up.

[ArmyBratproud]

Ole Ruth "Baiter" Ginsberg is guilty of the same stuff.
She has even sat on hearings that related to and had friends of the court letters of an organization she once belonged to.
I heard them talking about it on the news one day and I was like..."WHAT"
Maybe we are expecting too much...you know...logic and ethics from extremist lawyers.
In this country we went from a Justice system to a 'legal' system...and now the country is getting screwed.

[TheBattman]

Let me get this straight... a SITTING FEDERAL JUDGE is directly attacking the POTUS in a very public manner and he's still allowed to keep his bench????

[wagglebee]

To her credit, Ginsberg is Scalia's closest personal friend and has been for decades (they spend holidays together and often vacation together). Both of them have said on many occasions that they disagree in every possible way with the other's Constitutional viewpoints, but that they have the utmost respect for their integrity and ability.

[bvw]

Hooray, and every one of them should be so outspoken!

The Judiciary is independent and the worst thing it could be is to be silent. Let every Judge be heard. Let "We, the People" know hhow they think. Then -- and only then -- will WE have a Judicial selection process that isn't polarized and ruined by Party Politics.

[Sofa King]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: stuff like this is what keeps me from considering if the left's version of the truth is worth consideration.

Gore wanted to ignore election law to suit himself. He's the one who started with the lawsuits. If the left cannot snap itself out of their little fantasy land long enough to realize that they need to shut up about 2000, then nothing they say has any credibility.

[expatpat]

Just another Guido!

[bvw]

That is an ruinuous idea of the dangerously impractical and isolated idealist -- it shares a completely parallel intellectual heritage with the idea that newspapers, reporters, newsmen and news media should be or by some pixelated magical thinking --- can ever be -- impartial.

Information transmission is never impartial! A man named Shannon proved that mathematically.

And in the world of us regular humans -- the rub and hub-bub of daily society and politics -- it is utter folly to imagine that any speaker as to this or that important thing is ever "unbiased" -- it's an inhuman expectation! We humans have feelings, emotions, and hopefully properly functioning senses of right and wrong. These do and should color every action and every communication we make. And we can NOT communicate otherwise -- without bias, without some partiallity for that which appeals to us, which catches our eye, which tugs at our heart, or which offends us,which smells bad -- all that is needed to draw and needed period as part of the both spiritual and non-spiritual dynamic of being human. Unavoidable, intrinsic. And totally worthwhile. To be praised, to be celebrated! It's absense -- or that is -- any claim of its absense -- must be scorned as folly, as childish, as insane.