Posted on 10/14/2005 4:17:25 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
It's very interesting to go to RadioBlogger's july 2005 archives and read what Mr. Hewitt was saying about the SC back then. Here's a small sample. I'll put them all together, the perfect ingredients for a ** sandwich:
Hugh Hewitt on why federal judicial experience and a track record do matter:
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.
Hugh Hewitt on why age matters and why you don't want someone close to 60:
HH: You know, I had this argument with people earlier. I view every year as 70 votes. So when you trade from a Luttig or a Roberts at 50-51, or McConnell, or even a Miguel Estrada at 44, you're giving up seven hundred votes, seven hundred decisions. That's a lot of future influence for a president to give away to someone who he doesn't know who it's going to be.
and
Now let me close with Larry Thompson and Ted Olson, in the Washington Post write-up, as well as J. Harvey Wilkinson. They're all a little long in the tooth, really.
and now for the COUP DE GRACE. Hugh Hewitt on why Brilliance and Intellectual Greatness matter:
I want to pause for a moment, because you'll say great things about Luttig, Roberts and McConnell, as I have. There is an argument for brilliance that's got to be made here. And I don't know some of these judges. But those three I do, and they're brilliant. And brilliance matters, even if you're a dissent, because you've got to mold the law schools. You've got to mold the professions. You've got to look ahead. I think Bush needs to go for someone about whom there is no question of intellectual...the capacity for intellectual greatness.
Your Honor, Mr. Hewiit is GUILTY of fraud in his support for Miers. The evidence is clear and convincing, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
PING!
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/079614.asp
Re: Miers and the White House’s Judicial Selection Committee
[Edward Whelan 10/14 05:19 PM]
My post on Hugh Hewitt’s account (http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/079595.asp) elicited this e-mail from someone I know and trust:
“Hewitt says that Miers was a member of the White House Judicial Selection Committee for the last three years, i.e., from October 2002 to the present. I attended virtually every meeting of the White House Judicial Selection Committee from the start of that period (October 2002) into the summer of 2003. Neither Harriet Miers nor any of her staff attended a single meeting during that period.”
I've been attacked for suggesting us FReepers not go negative on each other. Let's see which side goes negative first on this thread.
Hugh is not a senator.
LOL - bon appetit, Hugh!
Beautiful. Thank you. Hewitt just lost all credibility on the Miers nomination unless he starts to oppose her based upon everything that he said here.
Uh, yeah, so what? If President Bush had called Hugh before Miers was put forth, he would have given him precisely this advice.
Only he didn't. And now the nomination has been made. People like this RedState poster are just clueless about Hugh's focus, which is to win the war (enduring conservative Republican power), not the battle (a single nomination). So he has moved on to the next question, which is: confirm or not? And for him, the answer is yes, because doing otherwise loses both the battle AND the war.
Just to be clear, Stellar: that post is effectively accusing Karl Rove of lying. Hugh did not make that claim, Rove did ON Hugh's show.
OMG, this is just rich.
See 'bots, this is what happens when you sell out your principles for Party. You wind up being shown for the dumbass you really are.
Gee another name comes to me as far as someone changing with the political winds every time the "polls" changed....what was that name again? Darn it. It will come to me. He was a President.
Oh Yeah, Slick Willie!
GREAT find!
Whereas Hewitt has mostly left most Freepers lukewarm at best in the past, now all of a sudden he has become the fount of conservative wisdom and civility, because he "articulates" what certain people here want to hear.
But thank you for pointing out that, before he was wise and civil, he was a freaking hypocrite!
Hugh Hewitt Fan Ping!!
That's the whole problem with Hugh Hewitt in general, far too quick to sacrifice principles for larger electoral margins. I like listening to him, but I definitely don't trust him to stand on any kind of principle.
Now now..
Kind mightily informed folks like him , Jay Leno and others, gave the sheople fine moderate leaders like the Gubinator and McCain, yaknow.
You know we can't tolerate conservatives in leadership positions, T'wouldn't be prudent.
We might actually have a chance to throw off the chains of PCism and the 'Moderates know best' mentality that is strangling this nation and squandering its future for its own ill-guided purposes, imo.
He has no principles. He's a non-conservative party hack.
Have you seen this, Ron?
Really?
Let's have our side stop the personal attacks, and see if the other side does.
I would like to read evidence as to why Harriet Miers is not brilliant.
I continually read and hear among conservatives that she is not smart enough for their standards.
Someone, please explain how it is known that Miers is not the smartest mind to ever join the Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.