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.
EXACTLY!!! ITA!!!!
And series!
So now anyone who dares question is a sexist, elitist, ignorant, cynic?
If only the White House went after the left like they do the right.
Not 'til you pointed it out. I have to admit I am cynical. But it's pretty clear from my posting history that my opposition was anything but cynical. It was out of concern, friendly, reasonably clear as to rationale, etc.
They really do want to kick the conservatives out of the GOP, I think. I'm playing hardball with the GOP, I tell you that.
"Strawberries?"
Exactlly, LMAO!
Nope, but you'd be doing a great service to the Conservative cause to keep it out there. I guess Dick will be added to the bigoted/sexist/elitist list now, but he's in good company, and the air is better over here. His Doctor's may have advised him to stay off the Kool-aid. Bad for the circulation or something. Blackbird.
Since she's 60 years old, and a nominee for the Supreme Court, shouldn't her intellectual ability be obvious?
I'm with the July, 2005 Hewitt on this. Intellectual firepower, as well as demonstrated conservative judicial philosophy, should be required. Heck, I'd settle for just "demonstrated conservative judicial philosophy." Problem is, with Miers, we're getting neither.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, out to discredit every conservative you can. Really making hay while the sun shines, ain't y'?
I've heard Medved's arguments. They're pretty good.
Helluva extrapolation. Saw the interview, and it's clear that Miers wasn't Cheney's first choice. However, the conclusion that Cheney therefore thought the Miers nomination was a "bad idea" is a leap of a wishful imagination.
"This bar year will culminate one year [sic] from now. We hope then to look back and say another year has passed [sic], and that we have left no stone unturned [sic] in the quest for service to our profession and the public, and that the lawyers of Texas [hear! hear!] have done more than their fair share [sic]--they have gone above and beyond [sic]."Harriett Miers
!!!
I did download the whole series last week. Thank you for sparing me the trouble of reading them.
That's for you to decide (your stance that is). My post stands. I'm not familiar with the rest of your posting history, unlike some of the other's I'll do battle with over this issue, as well as many other issues. I guess time will tell.
This was a battle in the Culture War that needed to be fought and fought hard. There was no room for compromise, and stealth was unwarranted. I'll not compromise my principles to a middle of the roader any more than I will to a Hard Core Leftist. You're either with us or you're agin' us. Who was it that made that quotable? Blackbird.
Or the RINOs. Seems they only arm-twist those they perceive as weak.
So, elitist, cynical, sexist, weak, loser conservatives we be. But I'm okay with it, because I gotta look at face in the mirror every day. At least I know why I stand where I do.
ANd that doesn't even get to the not-totally-incredible possibility that this nomination was a favor.
Lol
And your eschewing the salient question.
First, he was talking about appeals court judges. Second, those of us who think Miers is unqualified are not even trying to hold her to this standard (federal judicial experience). We are just trying to hold her to some standard, some track record which shows that she has the intellectual wherewithall to hold her own in the heady atmosphere of SC debates and sound as though she knows what she is talking about - something more than setting up a complaints hot-line.
True
So, elitist, cynical, sexist, weak, loser conservatives we be. But I'm okay with it, because I gotta look at face in the mirror every day. At least I know why I stand where I do.
Well we need a show of strength. It will have to be well organized and focused and take time to develop. I'd recommend taking out Chafee in the primary but I am open to suggestions.
"Tsk, tsk, tsk, out to discredit every conservative you can."
wrong again. i am actually supporting ann coulter, rush limbaugh, laura ingraham, peggy noonan, mark levin, weyrich, krauthammer, etc etc.
but if you you consider hugh hewitt a conservative, ive got a bridge to sell you.
Yes.
Her intellectual ability is obvious. She has graduated at the top of her classes academically. She has been recognized as among the top lawyers in the nation. She has accomplished a number of leadership first within the legal professional structure. Her intellectual strength is obvious to me. I am still waiting for the chicken little crowd (sorry for name calling-- I see from the "cynical" posts that Miers critics are feeling a little over sensitive) how they see clearly that she is not.
I work in academia I know how the "you're not smart" game is played. This is ideological not principaled. The fact that people can name alternatives that they 'feel' are more competent in no way demonstrates her incompetence. Miers meets the Scalia Thomas tests. I say again Thomas told the Senate he had not read Roe-- give me a break. Now he is the standard for a good justice.
Miers is more than qualified.
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.