Hugh Hewitt on Miers

Hugh Hewitt ^ | October 12, 2005 | Hugh Hewitt+

[RobFromGa]

Hugh Hewitt is one of the few pundits that understands that the vocal right minority's treatment of the Miers nomination is no different than the tactics used by the left to discredit jurists whom they have a philosophical difference with. It is borking just the same.

[RobFromGa]

Just wanted to make sure that you saw this.

[G.Mason]

"Playing with fire over nominees --and especially attacking those who at least deserve the benefit of the doubt and at best deserve a strong and determined defense-- is terrible politics."

I agree.

Before the hemlock is consumed let the hearings play out.

[baystaterebel]

Before the hemlock is consumed let the hearings play out.

Unfortunately it seems many Republican Pundits have bought hemlock futures and are looking to push up its price.

[Little Ray]

Hewitt is a cool-aid drinker.

Unfortunately, once she reaches the hearings, she's pretty much guranteed a seat on the SCOTUS. I'd rather stop her short. Conservatives are in short supply in the Senate - there are not enough to stop her if she refuses to demonstrate competence and originalist judicial philosophy. Most 'Pubbies will shut up and drink the cool-aid.

[G.Mason]

" ... hemlock futures ... "

Aye! ;)

[Mr. Thorne]

In the words of Socrates:

"I drank WHAT?!"

[G.Mason]

I believe it may be you are talking about.

Perhaps it becomes "cool-aid" after the cyanide is mixed in?

[G.Mason]

"In the words of Socrates:

"I drank WHAT?!"

I gave out such a spontaneous howl upon reading that, that my dogs came in to rescue me! ;)

[Bigun]

Hugh Hewitt is one of the few pundits that understands that the vocal right minority's treatment of the Miers nomination is no different than the tactics used by the left to discredit jurists whom they have a philosophical difference with. It is borking just the same.

Indeed it is borking and it is SHAMEFUL! (That's twice now that we've agreed on something! ;>))

[Cboldt]

I don't object to the nominee, per se. I object to the process.

I need to see a simple majority hurdle, and I need to have a degree of transparency in the nominee to permit me to reliably assess their understanding of, and commitment to apply judicial restraint.

The first point is a matter of adhereance to the balance of powers illuminated by the words of the Constitution. The second point is also a matter of balance of powers, as I don't want judges setting policy that should be set by the people through their elected legislature. The people deserve an honest & transparent process, not some sophist-laden charade.

So, inasmuch as Hewitt objects to false or unsubstantiated criticism of the nominee, he is right. But he should be considering whether or not he is happy with THIS process, as it is now underway.

Obviously, I am not happy with it, and my Senators know my feelings on the subject.

[Mr. Thorne]

My work here is done...

[rattrap]

He does keg stands with the kool-aid. If the Republican party came out on a platform of kicking puppies and taking lollipops from little kids Hugh would write 10,000 words on the virtue of the new platform.

[maryz]

Conservatives are in short supply in the Senate - there are not enough to stop her if she refuses to demonstrate competence and originalist judicial philosophy.

Where do you plan to find the conservative senators to vote for someone you'd like? Someone you like (I'd probably like such a nominee too) would be someone the Democrats hate (and someone Specter would hate and someone the Gang of 14 can't be counted on to support). The Dems consider this a "swing" seat in perpetuity; for Rehnquist's seat, they didn't get anyone worse for them than Rehnquist.

In this nomination, the stakes are higher for them, too. I think they'd filibuster. Thanks to McCain, the Republicans didn't break it when they had the chance.

[Miss Marple]

Thanks, Rob. Iowa Granny addressed another issue of concern this morning. She is concerned that the electorate's distaste with this type of behavior will result in switches in many state legislatures, which would be a major disaster.

Places like Iowa and Indiana have Republican legislatures with very slim majorities. I don't know about Iowa, but I know that a democrat legislature would keep Mitch Daniels from getting anything accomplished, and would probably end up with his defeat in 2008. Beltway people may not care about state politics, but those of us out here in the Heartland sure do.

[xzins]

There is something else that explains the objection to Miers.

Paper trail doesn't explain it. They had paper on O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. It proved nothing.

Her current position doesn't explain it. As the man says in the article: Offer any lawyer in America the job of Counsel to the President of the USA, and they will consider it a wonderful opportunity and an important position.

Her resume doesn't explain it. There aren't many who've headed a huge law firm, who have made law review, who've been named to the top 100 lawyers, who've been named to the top 50 female lawyers, who've been head of the state bar of one of our largest states, and who've been special counsel to the President of the USA.

A mathematician could tell me the probability that any lawyer (or anyone) could achieve such a resume. (We'd multiply each of the items, wouldn't we? How many lawyers are there in America? How many law firms over 400 lawyers are there in America? How many managing partners do they have per decade? What ratio of lawyers achieve that level...1/10,000 or 1/100,000 or what?) Bottom line: I'm betting that's a one in a million resume.

So, what other reason explains the objection of the conservative glitterati to Ms Miers?

Religion, Race, Sex, Social Status, hair color, height, age, country club....what????

I'll probably never know.

[Mike Darancette]

Indeed it is borking

How bad is it to be borked by Bork?

[indcons]

Ping to Kool Aid article by Hugh Hewitt.

[sasafras]

Hugh Hewitt - stated on his show Monday that he will NOT be critical of ANYTHING the Bush white house does because he is afraid of Hitlary in 08. Hugh is week kneed RINO, I refuse to listen to an idiot of his low intellect after that statement. I guess Bush could turn into another Hitler and Hugh would be supporting him????? His show has very low quality conversation and his constant referral of himself as a lawyer and lawyer guests is disgusting.