Posted on 10/25/2005 3:26:10 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
ping
A thoroughly devastating refutation of Hewitt's anemic case.
Spot-on!
Politics is just a sport to HH. Having put his bet on this loser, he won't back down no matter what comes out.
The President deserves us at least hearing what his nominee has to say for herself before we all start beating our chests and tearing out our hair because we THINK she MIGHT not be up for the job. Personally, I was hoping for Janice Rogers Brown, but feel that Ms. Miers will represent our side just fine in the SCOTUS. Remember, it's all about getting the VOTES, not writing the most illuminating opinions. What good does the brillance of Thomas and Scalia get us when the votes are against them? Nothing but resentment and bitterness as our champions are overruled by others on the SCOTUS. I want someone in there who will vote to back up Scalia and Thomas. I don't care a whit about if she is able to write fine prose and make great speechs. That is what seems to missing in this debate. The goal is to win in the SCOTUS, folks, not write lofty opinions for the losing side.
Bingo. He's acting like the nomination of Miers is a case he's been hired to try.
Who is Paul Zummo - and why should we care?
Shades of the Patsies.
Good points. And most conservatives well understand the above.
You have a lot to learn about the uber-conservatives on this website.
They would RATHER lose in a hail of florid vocabulary and tightly-woven legalese than WIN with a simple concurrence.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1508069/posts
Hugh Hewitt and Harriet Miers: Jumping the Supreme Court Shark
RedState.org ^ | 10/24/2005 | Blanton
Posted on 10/24/2005 3:32:25 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Hugh Hewitt has jumped the shark. I do not know that I will ever be able to entertain an argument of his seriously again. Suspicion was raised when Hugh backed Arlen Specter for Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Suspicion is confirmed with Hugh's unyielding defense of Harriet Miers. Hugh has ceased to be a conservative pundit and is now a shill for the administration. While critics of the Miers nomination are willing to give her credit for much, Hugh has apparently ignored all objectivity and closed his eyes to all concerns so that he can be an effective pimp of the Bush administration. Today, Hugh writes:
"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. Don't know what Brentwood is? Or the state action doctrine? Not many people do. But those that don't ought not to be confusing ConLaw with the private decisions of private firms while agruing that this policy makes Miers suspect on Bollinger. Now, if she supported a soft line on the Bollinger cases, that would be a legitimate area of concern, but not the Texas Bar resolutions."
First, Hugh must be discounting the numerous reports that clearly show Miers, Spellings, and Gonzales backed the administration splitting the baby in the University of Michigan affirmative action case. In fact, on Ken Melhman's blogger conference call, he was asked about Miers' position and did not dispute that Miers backed the White House's amicus brief in the case, which was widely seen by conservatives as a failed response. The Justice Department wanted to set a clear line on the matter, but when the brief went to the White House, enough water was added to make the amicus meaningless.
There is, however, a larger point of why Hugh has jumped the shark. He says we should give no weight to Miers' support of affirmative action in her position with the Texas Bar. It was, after all, a personal action and a "private setting." How then can we square this with Hugh's support of Miers?
Hugh's support seems to be, beyond trusting the President, based on the fact that people who know MIers say she'll be right on life, she'll have a conservative judicial philosophy, and that she is personally conservative and evangelical. This makes no sense. If Miers is personally supportive of affirmative action, Hugh believes that will not affect her judicial philosophy. But, because we're told Miers is personally conservative, Hugh believes her judicial philosophy will be just what we want. I dare not even contemplate the pains Hugh will go through to explain how personal support of affirmative action and a conservative judicial philosophy mess.
While Hugh should be applauded for unfailingly supporting the administration, pardon the rest of us if we do not want to go along. Thus far, Hugh has managed to cast aspersions on arguments George Will, Judge Bork, and most of National Review. While I can certainly give credence to the idea that we should wait for the hearings to make up our minds, Hugh has gone beyond that and in so doing has lost credibility on the subject.
Were Hugh Hewitt in Rome, he'd have been the first in line to champion Incitatus for the Senate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502702/posts
Hugh Hewitt exposed, read this and weep (Redstate.org)
RedState.org ^ | 10-14-2005 | anonymousbosch
Posted on 10/14/2005 6:17:25 PM CDT 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.
Another great point. In fact the article is replete with them.
Yep, HH's own words convict him of shilling.
bttt
In this circumstance, I just can't rally behind someone under those conditions. And neither can many other people.
#3
You really favor the term "uber-conservative," don't you?
[i]They would RATHER lose in a hail of florid vocabulary and tightly-woven legalese than WIN with a simple concurrence[/i]
All lot that will do them when the marshall come to kick them out of their homes and businesses because the SCOTUS ruled it was okay for the local government to do so, or they find their son being mentored by an openly gay scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts because the SCOTUS rules it was not right for the Scouts to exclude gays from leadership positions, or the countless other decisions that the nine judges on the High Court make that says how we shall live our lives. Like Mr. Hewitt, I just want to win in the SCOTUS. Winning means gets the 5 needed votes. Getting 4 and a lofty dissent gets you NOTHING.
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.