About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Clinton loses his cool? | Main | A real reason to criticize Wal-Mart? »

June 22, 2004


The judge's history is also wrong. It's been a few years since I read about this, so the details may not be quite right, but it happened something like this: in the 1933 German parliamentary elections, the Nazis actually lost seats, and Hitler was seen by many observers at the time as politically dead and on the way out. However, the leader of the majority party brought the Nazis into his government, thinking Hitler was a dupe who would be easy to control. Hitler than engaged in various parliamentary maneuvers to take control for himself. While it's true Hindenburg installed Hitler as chancellor, his role was only ceremonial (a doddering old man at the time, he hated Hitler and only made him chancellor because he had no choice). It was the leader of the governing party (whose name I can't remember) who actually brought Hitler back to political life and put him in a place of power.


Judge Calabresi's point was about how you view your role and use your power after assuming office by disputed/illegitimate/fishy means. Bush decided to go all out instead of seeking broad consensus and compromise (as, in the Judge's opinion, did Hitler and Mussolini). See a href="http://www.dclawstudent.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_dclawstudent_archive.html#108791323938382375">my post about the incident (I was there).

Tung Yin

Thanks, Scott. I'll grant that your point is, while still somewhat hyperbolic, more reasonable than what was reported. However, in looking at what was reported -- and this may be a case of the media emphasizing the wrong part of the response -- it still sounds like Judge Calabresi was complaining about Bush's ascension, and not his post-election agenda.

Chris Kane

It's not what the judge said, it's that it was said.

Most judges and attorneys are deeply involved in politics. That is especially true for judges the higher in the system they go.

Given this is true, how does one EVER get a fair trial. Luck of the draw?

The comments to this entry are closed.