Clinton Judge Compares Bush to Hitler

Once again, the Dems play the Hitler card. The NYTimes, which railed against Scalia for appearance of conlfict of interest, has no problem with a sitting judge openly calling for the defeat of a candidate, which is against the judicial code of conduct. Kevin

A few months ago the New York Times was among those who tried to brew up a kerfuffle over Justice Antonin Scalia's decision not to recuse himself from considering a case involving the office of the vice president. The argument was that because Scalia is a personal friend of the man who currently holds that office, his opinion would somehow create a conflict of interest, or at least the "appearance" of same--never mind that whatever precedent the court sets would apply to all future vice presidents, regardless of party.

Now a New York-based federal judge is openly campaigning against George W. Bush, the New York Sun reported Monday:

"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.

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.

According to the Sun, Calabresi "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."

But while Calabresi's remarks themselves are inconsequential, his position as a federal judge makes them highly improper. Blogger Eugene Volokh notes that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges stipulates that "a judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."

Well, fortunately, the vigilant defenders of judicial propriety and independence are on the case. The New York Times has an editorial denounc--oh wait, sorry, actually it doesn't have an editorial. Two days after the Sun's scoop, the Old Gray Lady, which supporters call a newspaper, hasn't even bothered wading in with a news story. As we write, a search for "Calabresi" on the Times Web site turns up zilch during the past 30 days. We'll keep you posted.

But gee, you don't suppose all that complaining about Cheney and Scalia was partisan, do you?