He sees the United States Supreme Court as moving towards what was called in the 30s a dual state about Nazi Germany,

which may sound alarmist, but I think this theory is quite interesting.

It was coined by this guy Ernst Frankl, who was a Jewish German who fought in World War I,

and he was very pro-World War I.

He thought it was a good thing, and he was glad to be fighting as a German Jew in World War I because he thought World War I. He thought it was a good thing and he was glad to be fighting as a German Jew in

World War I because he thought World War I would mean the end of anti-Semitism because he thought

if boy was he wrong. He thought if enough sausage-eating crowds saw a Jew like him fighting for the Kaiser, then they would leave their

bigotries behind and be okay with jury.

He was wrong about that.

However, there was a colonel there because he was a lawyer.

And when the Nazis came to power,

of course, they stopped Jews from being lawyers

with one carve-out,

and that is Jews who had fought in World War I got to be lawyers.

So he got to practice law under the Nazi regime and wrote this book, which is called

the dual state, which is very theoretical. However, I mean, it's about theory. It's about, you know,

yeah, it's theory. But it's the the rare sort of perspective of being this

theoretical text that's based entirely in his practical experience practicing law as the

Nazis are getting increasingly powerful and what he says is that uh and this is uhiz Hook, summarizing, a lawless dictatorship does not arise simply by snuffing out the ordinary legal system of rules, procedures, and precedence.

To the contrary, that system, which he calls the normative state, remains in place while dictatorial power spreads.

And rather than eliminating this normative state, the basic sort of, and I think of this

sometimes when I watch movies about Nazi Germany, why did they, why did they still have like judges and lawyers and people doing laws?

...