Ellis Washington
Hitler's judges: Roland Freisler and his U.S. progeny
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Ellis Washington
November 11, 2015

"How many judges do you think resigned in the Third Reich? Three. Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they think is morally wrong, in order to make a point."

~Justice Anthony Kennedy

"Justice Kennedy is holding up the Nazis as exemplars for the current Supreme Court."

~ Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)


Different picture, same Fascism: Roland Freisler (center), president of the Volk Court (People's Court), gives the Nazi salute at the trial of conspirators in the July 1944 plot to kill Hitler (Operation Valkyrie). Under Freisler's leadership, the court condemned thousands of Germans to death. Berlin, Germany, 1944. – DIZ Muenchen GMBH, Sueddeutscher Verlag Bilderdienst [original picture on the right]

Prologue: Judge Roland Freisler's protégés today

In a recent revelatory article published in WND.com befitting Halloween in its utter evil, Cruz: Justice Kennedy compares own ruling to Nazi Germany, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a so-called "conservative" jurist who was nominated in February 1988 by "Mr. Conservative" himself, President Ronald Reagan, made an interesting admission. Justice Kennedy said that Christians should resign from office like those who opposed Third Reich, if they don't like certain Progressive policies like same-sex marriage, Obamacare, abortion, etc.

Now do you see why I refer to the Democrat Socialist Party as "Holocaust Democrats" and why I did a series of historical essays systematically equating the political policies of Nazi National Socialism with Wilson-FDR-LBJ-Obama Democrat Socialism?

In an ironic twist demonstrative of a Freudian slip, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent remarks in a town hall meeting in answering various questions posed to him by citizens chose to answer one question by essentially comparing the judiciary in modern America with that of Nazi Germany. Was Kennedy correct or historically accurate to compare the U.S. Supreme Court to Nazi Germany or more pointedly, to Hitler's Nazi-controlled courts? I answer, absolutely and historically, Yes! Because both courts aggressively uses Socialism to push or force society (Glieshaltung) into an evolution atheist Weltanschauung (Nazi worldview).

Tragically, it was Justice Kennedy who last June gave the deciding vote in the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ____ (2015); a landmark case that questioned the legality of imprisoning Kentucky county Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed for nearly a week by U.S. District Judge David Bunning after the Supreme Court's marriage ruling when she refused Bunning's order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couple in violation of her Christian faith.

At the meeting, a young man took the microphone and asked the following of Kennedy:
    You claim new insights into the nature of marriage require states to issue marriage licenses in accord with this alternative version of marriage. And I can understand a similar case, probably more attractive to those of us who think that rational norms guide the exercise of sexual autonomy like they do economic autonomy, which would be that new insights into the nature of human life require states to take steps to stop abortions.

    My question would be, in either of these cases, would you say that there are any state or federal officials with authority to act according to her own judgment of the truth of new insights or of the soundness of the court's constitutional interpretation, or would it be illegal for any federal official or state official to act according to the old understanding of life and the Constitution that she still judges to be the truth of the matter?
Justice Kennedy replied:
    If I could rephrase it in a fair way, what is the duty of a public official if he or she cannot in good conscience, and consistent with their own personal and religious beliefs, enforce a law they think is morally corrupt?

    How many judges do you think resigned in the Third Reich? Three. Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they think is morally wrong, in order to make a point. However, the rule of law is that, as a public official and performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law. It's difficult sometimes to see whether or not what you're doing is transgressing your own personal philosophies – this requires considerable introspection. It's a fair question that officials can and should ask themselves. But certainly in an offhand comment, it would be difficult for me to say that people are free to ignore a decision of the Supreme Court. Lincoln went through this in the Dred Scott case. These are difficult moral questions.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) immediately posted the video on his Facebook page, and commented: "When a Supreme Court justice compares his own lawless rulings to the draconian oppression of the Nazis – and says that Christians should resign from public office if they will not surrender to his imperious decrees – that really says it all. Those are his words, not mine. Justice Kennedy is holding up the Nazis as exemplars for the current Supreme Court." Sen. Cruz further stated that, "I, for one, would rather stand with heroes like Bonhoeffer, than the tyrants who inflicted unspeakable evil. And the persecution of Christians – in Iran, China, or America – is simply wrong."

Biography of Hitler's favorite judge: Roland Freisler

Regarding Adolf Hitler's favorite and most fanatical (i.e., activist) judge, Roland Freisler, according to the History Learning website, Roland Freisler was the most high-ranking and notorious judge of Hitler's so-called "People's Court" – a Fuhrer-created Court that would 100% of the time give the guilty judgments Hitler's maniacal revenge worldview demanded against all "Enemies of the Reich" – both actual enemies and perceived ones. Freisler established a reputation for using the most outrageous and injudicious antics to publically demean and decimate those on trial in his court; tactics that only fueled Freisler's psychotic vengeance he unleashed against defendant after defendant unfortunate enough to come before his court.

While very little is actually known about Freisler's early years, we know that Roland Freisler was born on Halloween's Eve, October 30th 1893 in Celle, Germany. During World War I he served as a cadet achieving the rank of lieutenant, and was awarded medals for his valor before being captured and held prisoner by the Russians where he with all other German POW's was eventually freed by the Russians and repatriated when the Communist seized power in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

After World War I ended, Freisler studied Law at the University of Jena where he achieved his Doctor of Law in 1922 and following the Zeitgeist (spirit of the times) believed that the Weimar Republic government, particularly under Gustave Stresemann (1924-29) was utterly decadent, corrupt, and must be over thrown. Insurrection became a cause célèbre particularly after the French and Belgians invaded the Ruhr in 1923 in an aggressive effort to keep Germany from using this strategic and vast industrial region to rebuild its military, while the government of the Weimar Republic did nothing to counter this invasion.

Germany needed an Übermensch (Superman, Strongman) and she needed him now to raise this once mighty empire from her knees and to enact a great revenge against all of Europe who had enslaved her under what many Germans perceived as the tyrannical and unjust terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1919).

Therefore Freisler, like most disillusioned young German men in the early 1920s turned to socialism and nationalism. In July 1925, Freisler joined the Nazi Party and essentially became the Nazi Party lawyer using his legal skills to defend his fellow Nazis arrested on various crimes. Freisler soon obtained a reputation as a zealous defense lawyer in court and his status quickly ascended up the Nazi party ranks where soon after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933, Freisler was appointed Department Head in the Prussian Ministry of Justice. He was later appointed to the Reich Ministry of Justice from 1934-42, and was a one of the leading figures at the infamous Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1942 where the logistical machinery for Hitler's "Final Solution" to murder all the Jews in Europe was planned, plotted, and executed. He remained in this position until 1942.


The four 'activist' Nazi jurists most responsible for Nazifying the legal system of Germany. From left to right: Roland Freisler, Franz Schlegelberger, Otto Georg Thierack and Curt Rothenberger.

Conversely, Freisler would seal his diabolical reputation as a fanatical zealot and thus his eventual doom as Hitler's Chief Nazi judge at the People's Court. In the documentary excerpt below one can hear Freisler's high-pitched, shrill voice in rapid fashion hurling down questions, really accusations and maledictions against the miserable defendants before him standing pathetically wearing ill-fitting clothes, like the thunderbolts of Zeus; victims who had no legal counsel to defend themselves, thus their guilt was predetermined. Hitler's People's Court tried "political offences," which was of such broad dimensions that it covered virtually anything – including baseless insinuations, unfounded accusations, or general catch-all criminal charges like being an "enemy of the Reich." When Freisler expounded his judgments in writing, he always did so with an extreme amount of Nazi propaganda to achieve the maximum dramatic effect in court. Most descriptions of his judgments dealt with the question of defeatism by utterly deconstructing the self-confidence of his victims and ascribing the most evil intent to every motive and action of the defendant before him.

These Machiavellian tactics aren't new and are used today when the Marxist Media Inc. questions the Republicans during the presidential debates with loaded questions designed not to illicit relevant information on law and policy, business, healthcare, education, or economics, but to assassinate every Republican candidate publically on stage (like Nazi judge Freisler did) so that Hillary Clinton will win the presidential election in 2016.

Freisler was made President of the Hitler-created and controlled Nazi People's Court in August 1942. His Nazi jurisprudence was responsible for the death penalty of over 2,600 people, the most notable being the two Munich University students, Sophie and Hans Scholl, who together with their fellow students and philosophy professor Kurt Huber, were members of the White Rose resistance group. Hangman judge Freisler sentenced most of its members to be executed by guillotine in 1943. Freisler also was the prosecution judge in the failed July 1944 Bomb plot to assassinate Hitler, Operation Valkyrie. Like every trial Freisler presided over, the question of guilt was predetermined, the only question in Freisler's perverted, fascist judgment was how many monstrous crimes he could charge these defendants with in addition to their major crime of attempted murder of the Fuhrer. An excerpt from the 2007 Documentary on Freisler – Hitler's Blood Judge can be observed below.



The exact manner and method of Freisler's deserved death remains a mystery to this day, however, one thing remains certain, as Freisler was presiding over a trial in the People's Court in Berlin on February 3rd 1945, an Allied raid attacked the building he was in during the midst of the trial. While the question of how he died is unclear, some eyewitnesses assert that he was killed by falling stones due to the bombing, while others declared that Freisler died due to a massive blood loss dying outside of the bombed out court house.

Freisler's ignominious death is reminiscent of the of sixth verse of the ancient Latin text of the Requiem Mass, Dies Irae (Day of Wrath):
    Judex ergo cum sedebit,

    Quidquid latet apparebit:

    Nil inultum remanebit.
    When the Judge his seat attaineth,

    And each hidden deed arraigneth,

    Nothing unavenged remaineth.
*Note: The literal poetic justice of this text applied to Freisler's death in the word Judge. Its substantive meanings are truly prophetic and transcendent.

Epilogue: Why is Justice Kennedy's judicial tyranny less vile than Judge Freisler's?

You will never understand the Socialist-Progressive Revolution if you don't understand the presuppositions they always launch their arguments. For example, one of their intellectual leaders, Karl Marx, the father of Socialism and Communism, famously said, "The first battlefield is the re-writing of history." This means that the Socialist-Progressive Revolution will stop at nothing...even re-writing history to comport with their perverted, evolutionary atheist worldviews in order to make sure that "the ends justify the means" as their atheist patron saint Machiavelli often said. This tactic must be done in order for any political revolution to impose its fascist will over We the People. In a prepared statement, Mat Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel said Justice Anthony Kennedy's message was unmistakable: "Government officials who disagree with him and his four other colleagues regarding their newly invented and groundless marriage opinion ought to resign."

Nevertheless, the Socratic dialectical question the Republican majority in Congress must answer is this – "What is the law and what happens when justices violate their oath to interpret the Constitution" Here Staver is apparently echoing legal philosophers down through the Ages like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, America's Founding Fathers, and MLK, who all said with a singular voice – unjust laws "should be resisted." Staver further argued against Justice Kennedy's truthful comparisons of Nazi Law in the 1930s and 40s and Progressive Law today – "Religious freedom and conscience should be protected. Justices or judges who disregard the Constitution and impose their own will should resign," he said.

That's a nice sentiment, but surely Staver realizes that arrogant, entitled Justices of today hold the same godlike power over the affairs of men which they often use for evil ends and thus are no more likely to give up that power today than Hitler's evil Nazi judges would do in the 1930s and 40s. In fact, Justice Kennedy answered his own question of how many judges resigned on moral principle during the Nazi era? Kennedy queried: "How many judges do you think resigned in the Third Reich? Three...." Only 3, that's more than the number of judges who would risk their judicial career by standing on moral principle in modern times don't you think? I can only think of only one judge who stood on moral principles in modern times and lost his job because it – Judge Roy Moore. Thank God Moore got his old job back on the Alabama Supreme Court.


Left to right – The 5 justices who made up the majority who voted for same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy.

The historical irony of Justice Kennedy's outrageous and arrogant declaration that Christians in American society essentially need to resign from all positions of power in America that come into conflict with their faith, is demonstrative of the fact that this is how the Socialist-Progressives have thought about Jews, Christians, and religion for thousands of years... even before the terms Socialist or Progressive were ever brought into our lexicon.

This is why in my 4-volume book of historical essays, The Progressive Revolution, particularly in Vol. III and Vol. IV, I painstakingly traced the historical, legal, political, and philosophical origins of Progressivism, and was compelled to use the subtitle – "... History of Liberal Fascism through the Ages." That's why the famous philosopher Hannah Arendt was compelled in her 1963 classic opus to coin the phrase, banality of evil" to describe the existential evil of the Nazis. History has repeatedly demonstrated to us that the more power and political hegemony Socialist-Progressives seize, the more brazen and outrageous their next demands become as they like their ideological cousins, the Nazis of the 1930s and 40s derive pleasure by rubbing the collective faces of We the People into the ashes of our Judeo-Christian traditions they are so hellbent on deconstructing, perverting, and ultimately destroying. In modern times this existential "liberal fascism" dates back at least to the French Revolution (1789-99), the close of the Age of Enlightenment which witnessed the birth of a virulently genocidal anti-Christian Holocaust that concurrently birthed the modern-day liberalism, socialism, and progressivism.

When will the conservatives, the Christians and all people of good will wake up and fight this Progressive Revolution? It seems that the aphorism by Hitler's Auschwitz death camp doctor, Joseph "Dr. Death" Mengele was tragically right regarding the leitmotiv of human events – The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.

According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia, regarding Freisler's 1943 Holocaust trial against the Munich University student members of the White Rose Resistance, contains this anti-Justice Kennedy dying devotion to moral principle – "At his trial [philosophy professor Kurt] Huber remained loyal to the eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant's ethical teaching, as he concluded his defense with the words of Kant's disciple Johann Gottlieb Fichte:"
    And thou shalt act as if

    On thee and on thy deed

    Depended the fate of all Germany,

    And thou alone must answer for it.


Book Notice

Please purchase my latest opus dedicated to that Conservative Colossus, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Here are the latest two new volumes from my ongoing historical series – THE PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION: History of Liberal Fascism through the Ages (University Press of America, 2015):
However, before the book is officially released to the public, I have to place 100 pre-publication orders (50 orders per each volume). I need your help to make this happen ASAP. Please place your order today for Volume 3 & Volume 4. Of course, if you can order all 100 copies today, the book will become official tomorrow.

Please circulate this flyer to all your email contacts & Facebook/Twitter followers who may be interested in purchasing this opus which will serve as a ready apologetic against the rampant Marxist-Progressive propaganda taught in America's public schools, colleges, universities, graduate schools, and law schools. Thanks in advance to all my friends, associates and colleagues for your invaluable support! Law and History Blog: www.EllisWashingtonReport.com


Invitation for manuscripts

I am starting a new a program on my blog dedicated to giving young conservatives (ages 14-35) a regular place to display and publish their ideas called Socrates Corner. If you know of any young person who wants to publish their ideas on any subject, have them send their essay manuscripts to my email at ewashington@wnd.com.

© Ellis Washington

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington is a former staff editor of the Michigan Law Review (1989) and law clerk at the Rutherford Institute (1992). Currently he is an adjunct professor of law at the National Paralegal College and the graduate school, National Jurisprudence University, where he teaches Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, American History, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure, Contracts, Real Property, and Advanced Legal Writing, among many other subjects... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Ellis Washington: Click here

More by this author