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.
I bow only to God. What about you?
I recently listened to Hewitt tie himself into convoluted knots backing gay rights and her rulings. I absolutely wanted to puke.
I will have silence, commercials, FM, anything on before I listen to that stinking rotten RINO, Hewitt again. I never liked the guy, nor the three namer female host he has replacing him while on vacations. She sounds like somebody on South Park.
That's fairly well obvious. Just didn't come to a head until a couple weeks ago.
Not true. There are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives going to bat for Miers. Hewitt isn't the lone voice.
In fact, I was amused at Billy Kristol stammering and stuttering on Bill O'Reilly tonight when O'Reilly asked Kristol why so many Conservatives and Republicans are gutting this woman when they know little about her.
- bump -
Gotcha...meant to say Texas...as in Texas law firm she was manging director.
Maybe the firm was in Dallas...dont know.
Intellectual honesty is valued though, I'm sure you'll agree. I've been called on making what appear to be inconsistent statements - and I appreciate being called out on it. Sometimes the contradiction is because I was taken out of context, others because my expression sucked, and sometimes I changed my mind.
Pointing out what appear to be inconsistencies actually advances the ball - one way or another - provide an answer comes forth.
I have to say, reading the paragraphs of Hewett, he is inconsisten on a few criteria he holds out as important for a SCOTUS nominee. The quotes are failry well self-contained (I can't imagine a context that would change their meaning), and are diametrically opposed to his support for Miers.
He's been called out on. We await his explanation. Out of context? Poorly spoken" Misconstrued? Changed mind? I dunno - but from this end, his credibility on the Miers support is shot / kaput - to an objective observer.
I don't listen to him, don't get him on the air here. I wouldn't know him from Adam. I'm not a fan, or a detractor. I base my preliminary conclusion only on what is written here, which as I said, is fairly well sef-contained.
If you can clear it up, by all means, go for it.
I need a tune up then. I get "High Hopes" the Sinatra version. ("Rubber tree plant" song)
---I recently listened to Hewitt tie himself into convoluted knots backing gay rights and her rulings. I absolutely wanted to puke.---
Whose rulings? Sorry I'm a little slow on the uptake tonight.
"nor the three namer female host he has replacing him while on vacations. She sounds like somebody on South Park."
Right on, I emailed HH several times about how bad she was. As far as HH goes he says he is center right but I put him more left of center. He doesn't like the 2nd A and supports most libs like Spectre. I basically quit listening. In fact I'm beginning to think twice Medved also. Oh well, I turn it off when I get disgusted.
I'm not surprised. Kristol can be slow on his feet.
O'Reilly asked the wrong question though. It's not that the objectors are against Miers, per se (have you heard this litany before?). The objection, and Santorum has expressed it, is the absence of record.
So, since the objectors object to a nomination where the nominees record is thin, the question is really dense. Like, "Why is a blue hat blue?" Duh. It just is, what do you expect?
"And for him, the answer is yes, because doing otherwise loses both the battle AND the war."
How can his approach be any clearer. You nailed it right on.
Why? Like anyone else, she's of average intellect unless she demonstrates above or below average intelligent.
What you're doing is begging the question. You are assuming as true (Miers is brilliant) something that has yet to be proven by fact.
Nice try.
It's reported at a couple of places. Here's one.
thank u very much
Bada bing Bada Boom! Great find. Hewitt is a fraud.
As noted in previous post:
She graduated among the top in her classes at SMU
She was selected among her peers for multiple leadership positions in private forms and elected organizations.
She lead a fight against the Bar association's preference for abortion rights-- something that shows she is a conservative leader with back bone.
She helped select the popular slate of Bush judges.
The pre emptive strikes being launched against Miers are unwarranted. She does indicate more than adequate qualification for the court.
The attacks are motivated by elitism within Republican ranks and a refusal to acknowledge the political realities of the Senate which would not allow a recognized conservative jurist to be placed on 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.