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

NewsMax ^ | 6/21/04 | Carl Limbacher

[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.