[Sir Gawain]

Hewitt only slaps his monkey.

[bigsigh]

what step of the ladder was HH on when he slapped him.

[The Iguana]

George Will could serve ably on SCOTUS.

But so too can and will Harriett Miers, and all the aspersions in Will's deep well of such things won't change that fundamental fact.

I wouldn't put either one of them on the Court.

That Hewitt would really makes me wonder if he has any idea what the Supreme Court is all about.

[Theodore R.]

Powell's vote did not decide Roe v. Wade. Roe was 7-2, with the late Rehnquist and White dissenting.

[peyton randolph]

I see many on the web are exercised about Harriet Miers' support for affirmative action in the private setting of support for resolutions of the Texas Bar urging quotas in hiring at private law firms. It is not a policy with which I would agree either, but it also not a matter of constitutional law, unless under Brentwood the action of the Texas Bar in urging private firms to set strict goals has converted into a state action.

The State Bar of Texas is an administrative agency of the judicial branch in Texas.

In addition, Miers as President of the Bar strongly supported quotas on the Bar's board of directors that required the appointment at that time of 4 minority or female attorneys to the Board. That would be a specific quota of an administrative agency of the State of Texas...not a policy urging private firms to hire more minorities and women.

Hewitt - you've just been b*tch-slapped by another SMU Law alumnus.

[RobbyS]

That's the difference between an owner and a sportswriter. One lives to win. The other lives to write good copy.

Or between a baseball PLAYER and a sportswriter. Remember "The Natural" and the interchanges between the Robert Redford character and the one played by Bobby Duvall? "Did you ever play the game?" Of course the sportswriter never did.

[DrDeb]

EXCELLENT post!!

[Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . I wonder why some on this thread give more credence to the rantings of a journalist/pundit than they give to the arguments of a constitutional lawyer/professor who has actually vetted prospective SC justices . . . seems rather hypocritical to me, but then I'm not using Democrat/liberal means to achieve supposed conservative ends!!]

[1035rep]

bookmark
Interesting article

[USPatriette]

I love George Will, but with the intensity and near-nastiness of the stuff he's been writing lately, which I don't doubt he genuinely feels, someone needed to put it -- and him -- in proper perspective. So ... good for Hewitt.

[tallhappy]

Hewitt is a buffoon.

I listened to his show for a long time before and liked and appreciated it, but he's insufferable now.

[Mount Athos]

This column is an embarassing joke.

The shame is all his own -- Hugh Hewitt instantly proclaimed Mier's merited a "B+", without substantial facts or reasoning.

The biggest difference between Hugh Hewitt and George Will, is that George actually has serious conservative principles, while Hugh is eager to abandon any semblance of them in favor of "winning big".

I actually listen to Hugh Hewitt regularly, but this petty sniping of his is really sick.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

(HUGH HEWITT slaps little George Will)

Hugh Hewitt couldn't buy himself a clue if you spotted him the "c," the "u" and the "e."

[Ken H]

Don't forget the standard Hugh Hewitt applied back in July in urging against the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown:

"You see, I've tried to explain to people about Judge Janice Rogers Brown, that she has not been a federal judge. And my concern over her and Priscilla Owen is, that federal judges just do different things than state judges.

And I want to see a little bit from them, before you run as a conservative. I don't want to run blind. And I think she really hasn't done, for example, federalism issues, hasn't done federal pre-emption, hasn't interpreted the free exercise of the establishment clause, though there are Constitutional counterparts in California.

That's my concern, Erwin. I just don't think they're reliable enough when it comes to understanding how they'll handle federal issues."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502702/posts

[duckln]

Sad, very sad. Seems he's boned up more on Will's
decades and decades of analysis than on Miers. He just proved again that Will, Coulter, Buchanan, Keyes or any conservative I can think of, would make a better SC judge than Miers, for the simple reason, we know where they stand.

[nopardons]

Each anti-Miers ( and Chief Justice John Roberts' opponents too )pundit, is merely sour grapes, because the person/s they were rooting for, wasn't picked. This is a new phenomenon; one which I do not recall ever having seen before. It should now go away!

The only person who has a choice in any judicial nomination, right or wrong, is the president.

[ModelBreaker]

He crudely misunderstands Will's argument and then refutes the strawman. Sixth grade stuff. C- for effort.

[Carry_Okie]

Hewitt is a poseur conservative, always has been.

[fat city]

I don't care- anyone who calls the Bible the "Baseball Encyclopedia of the religious" is a pretty damn clever writer.

[flashbunny]

oh, you mean the assault weapon ban supporting quisling known as hugh hewitt?

Yeah, right.

[Colonial Warrior]

President Bullwinkle here with an equal time looney commentary:

If I Were President: Speech on Nominating a Supreme Court Justice

NOTE: This post contains naughty language, up to and including a synonym for a donkey. Yes, if I were President, I would swear more often.

Liberals and the American People, I come before you today to explain what I am seeking in a new Supreme Court Justice. Some think there needs to be special qualifications to be a member of the Supreme Court, but I would like to remind you of something:

THE CONSTITUTION IS ONLY LIKE THREE FRICK'N PAGES LONG!

Theoretically, anyone with a sixth-grade level of reading comprehension should be able to check if something is allowed by the Constitution. Instead we have all this precedent crap and who knows what else to complicate the hell out of what should be a simple thing. What's really needed here? Years and years of a legal education or just an hour reading the actual document in question here?

Some have asked if there will be litmus test based on the Roe v. Wade decision.

OF COURSE THERE WILL BE!

And it hasn't nothing to do with abortion, either. It's just that anyone who thinks that Roe v. Wade is a sane Supreme Court decision should not only not be a Supreme Court Justice, he should not be a Supreme Court janitor. I mean, come on; the majority opinion spelled out things based on trimesters! Now, simple question: Is that something out of the Constitution or something pulled out of one's ass? And should judgments on law be based on the Constitution or what comes out of one's ass?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Anyhoo, appointing a Justice is still an important thing, because it is a lifetime appointment. Then again, I can always kill them and pardon myself - yet another check and balance. And it's an option I may use if some of the more choice idiots in the Supreme Court don't decide to retire.

And that's all I had to say about that. God bless.

Author Unknown