Hugh Hewitt exposed, read this and weep (Redstate.org)

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:

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.

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.

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.

I was willing to go with Miers, but her writings bothered me, so I'm on the fence.

I love Hewitt's brashness and partisanship, but he wouldn't have picked Miers either. He's loyal to the party, perhaps more than the cause.

He will be the first to tell you that his thoughts from earlier appointments don't matter much now because we've different personalities involved, and Miers HAS been appointed, which faces facts that are before us. He is a lawyer, afterall, who hopes you won't remember stuff like this.

We need guys like Hewitt that take ZERO crap from liberals. Rush, Hannity, & Laura Ingraham are others.

Do you allow that a person could still be conservative in good standing if they support Bush on this nomination?

I don't see anyway for a Conservative, a Constituionalist, a Constructionist, can do anything but hang their head in shame if supporting this stealth nominee is the best they can muster. This is what it's been all about. Does that answer your question? You're certainly not bound by my opinion. There are plenty of FReeper's who'll have nothing to do with me and vice versa. I lose no sleep over it. I will still converse, and get replies, from some that I've tugged with, when we agree on something. This issue though, is paramount in it's importance for longevity of our Conservative cause. This was absolutely unnecessary. My question to you, why would you support this nomination? Is it the "trust me" syndrome, or do you know something that has yet to be demonstrated this past week or so? Keep in mind also, while plenty were dissenting, the perpetrator's of this scam started the shill name calling. The spinners in this are amateurs at best. Blackbird.

enduring conservative Republican power

One way to insure conservative power is to keep the SCOTUS from moving left, which ithas done for over 60 years, as far back as the Roosevelt's attempt to "pack" the court. We do not need any more legislating from the bench. All we know so far about Nominee Miers is that she will follow President's Bush philosophy regarding the Supreme Court, whether she agrees with it or not. Perhaps the Senate hearings will give us a better idea of how Miers as a judge would approach Constitutional law. But given the tendency of Judiciary Committees to give speeches rather than ask tough questions, and for the nominee to actually respond or take the fifth, we may not get the answers we wish to hear.

A little history for your viewing pleasure [emphasis added]:

In 1935-1936, the Supreme Court, which was dominated by conservatives with a narrow view of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the basis of much New Deal legislation, struck down eight of FDR's New Deal programs.

In response Roosevelt submitted to Congress in February of 1937 a plan for "judicial reform," which proposed adding a justice for every justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire, up to a maximum of 15 total. This came to be known as his attempt to "pack" the Court. Up to this point in his presidency, no vacancy on the Supreme Court had arisen, despite him now being in his second term - an exceptionally unusual occurrence and one that presumably added to his frustrations. Though the plan failed in Congress, as a threat to the Court it may have had its desired effect. In a move cynically referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine", one of the conservative justices, Owen Roberts, inexplicably shifted his vote in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, changing the ideological balance of the Court. This episode is often referred to as the "Constitutional Revolution of 1937" and it ushered in a period wherein the Supreme Court largely abdicated its role in limiting the scope of federal power, in particular as regards economic intervention and regulation. It was not until the Rehnquist Court that the Supreme Court began to once again assert its power to over the scope of federal power. It was not long before time allowed Roosevelt to further have his way on the bench, as vacancies allowed Roosevelt to eventually fill all nine seats with his appointments - the most of any presidency except George Washington's.

The Court was packed 9-0 at the end of the Roosevelt administration. With the addition of Miers the Court would be packed 2-5-2 on most critical issues, with the last two being question marks. Some have opined with their crystal balls that Miers would vote with Scalia and Thomas virtually all of the time. That would be kind of hard to do given the following:

The Volokh Conspiracy - Justices voting together [from June 29, 2004]
SCOTUSBlog reports on how often pairs of Justices voted together. Here are the top 9 percentages (counting those times that the Justices agreed with each other entirely):

Souter	Ginsburg	85%
Rehnquist	O'Connor	79%
Rehnquist	Kennedy	77%
Stevens	Souter	77%
Ginsburg	Breyer	77%
Stevens	Ginsburg	75%
Scalia	Thomas	73%
O'Connor	Breyer	70%
Souter	Breyer	70%

Souter - Ginsburg - Stevens. The three mouseketeers of the left, appointed by Bush the elder, Clintoon and Gerald Ford

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.