You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Federal judge compares Bush to Mussolini
2004-06-21
By JOSH GERSTEIN, New York Sun
EFL
Well, at least it’s more original than "Bush = Hitler." Just as silly, but much more original.
"Busholini"?
A prominent federal judge has told a conference of liberal lawyers that President Bush’s rise to power was similar to the accession of dictators such as Mussolini and Hitler. “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,” said Guido Calabresi, a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in Manhattan. “The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy,” Judge Calabresi continued, as the allusion drew audible gasps from some in the luncheon crowd Saturday at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society. “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.
"Urk. Excuse me while I remove my foot from my mouth."
I am not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler.
"I said ’Mussolini,’ not ’Hitler.’ I’m not a moonbat, really. Don’t lump me in with the ’Bush = Hitler’ crowd."
I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual,” the judge said. Judge Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School, said Mr. Bush has asserted the full prerogatives of his office, despite his lack of a compelling electoral mandate from the public. “When somebody has come in that way, they sometimes have tried not to exercise much power. In this case, like Mussolini, he has exercised extraordinary power. He has exercised power, claimed power for himself; that has not occurred since Franklin Roosevelt who, after all, was elected big and who did some of the same things with respect to assertions of power in times of crisis that this president is doing,” he said. The 71-year-old judge declared that members of the public should, without regard to their political views, expel Mr. Bush from office in order to cleanse the democratic system.
Judge Moonbat Calabresi has drawn some harsh critiques from the legal end of the blogosphere. The Instapundit delivers a relatively gentle rebuke:
From a federal appeals judge, Guido’s remarks (assuming they have been correctly reported) are not only tendentious and inflammatory, but will serve to further encourage those who call the federal courts politicized and overweeningly liberal.
Prof. Eugene Volokh is not so soft:
Hitler’s and Mussolini’s faults did not include Bush’s supposed fault. Bush’s faults do not include Hitler’s and Mussolini’s faults. The supposed analogy that Judge Calabresi is making thus seems to have no basis at all. . . . So what possible legitimate role does the analogy to Hitler and Mussolini have here?
The Curmudgeonly Clerk (another lawblogger) notes:
. . . Judge Calabresi’s remarks go too far. His speech constitutes an unambiguous violation of the Code of Conduct [for United States Judges]. He has improperly publicly declared opposition to a specific political candidate (and thereby implicitly endorsed another). Such brazen politicking from members of the federal bench cannot be tolerated.
Jonah Goldberg astutely notes:
. . . demanding a popular uprising to "cleanse" the decadent democratic system in order to sweep your side into power is itself an argument a great many fascists would find very familiar.
So who’s Il Duce now?
Posted by:Mike

#3  I read a story about how to fix manual recount elections by rehandling ballots until the chads fall out an invalidate the ballots. Its been a sucessful strategy for the DNC in several California elections. One DNC operative, is quoted as having said that he could win any election that is within 100 votes. My guess is that Hitler or Mussolini would have whole-heartedly adopted that methodology. Why would it be wrong to stop a group of crooks enegaged in that type of game?

As Calabresi studied Hitler, is it possible that he ran across this quote? - "By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeatedly, it is possible to make people beleive that heaven is hell - and hell heaven."
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-06-21 11:32:46 PM  

#2  CF - that argument was fought/won long ago - anything more is revisionism by losers (losers in all sense of the word)
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-21 7:22:36 PM  

#1  Problem is, Bush was not 'placed in power' by the supreme court but was elected. It was a fair, open, and honest election and the winner of the election was George W. Bush.

The supremes only ruled that the election was proper and not 'stolen'. They did not rule that Bush was the winner or 'put someone in power'. There is a large difference.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-06-21 7:11:18 PM  

00:00