Someone needs to do one of those amusing photoshops, replacing Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf's face with Hugh Hewitt's.
Posted on 10/14/2005 4:12:08 PM PDT by jeltz25
A compendium of Hugh's comments on the original SC vacancy in July, quite different from what he's saying today. all from the july 2005 radioblogger archives.
Hugh Hewiit 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 Hewiit on why age matter 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.
comments?
Ouch. Nothing like being hung by your own words, eh?
Hugh is a joke-kneepad-wearing party hack.
What people here don't seem to get, however, is that Hugh is a party man. That is, he believes that ultimately it is vital that the Republican party grow in power and prominence if the conservative agenda is ever going to take hold. So he has long since moved onto a new question: given that the pick has been made, where should we go from here?
And I do think that the utter ferocity of the objections to Miers took him aback as well.
Another flack.....what else is there to say?
I hate to admit it, but I think you're right. He's just a fanatic bushbot now, spewing the party line.
"What people here don't seem to get, however, is that Hugh is a party man"
Oh, I think everybody gets that.
Isn't true Hugh supported Arlen Specter in the Republican primary last year? One has to wonder how conservative Hugh is.
Your position has a major flaw.
Someone needs to do one of those amusing photoshops, replacing Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf's face with Hugh Hewitt's.
others have said hewitt supported the renewal of the 'assault weapons ban' as well.
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.