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.
im sure he will see it or hear about it anyway. this sort of stuff catches wildfire once posted on a site like FR
KITTEN KILLER!
David Brooks and David Frum have compiled excerpts of her written and oral exposition. Not only is 'un-brilliant,' it is mediocre to the point of embarrassment.
sink, you may want to see this.
Cboldt is just kidding around, Rodney
Thanks again!!
Is Hugh Hewitt important enough for me to care what he thought then and what he thinks now? If "yes", then should I care what Michael Savage thinks about this?
that's someone elses blog entry i just posted it for all to see
BINGO! Well said.
Post zero did just that.
OUTED!!! I smelled a rat when he spoke up originally, and even more so when the apes here started bleating and figured he would be exposed. Must admit, it came much sooner than I expected. Great find! Blackbird.
It's sad to see so many conservatives return to the Circular Firing Squad strategy. ::sigh::
I saw it. The pundits are just noise. I don't listen to Hugh Hewitt and have never defended him.
My main mission has been against those who want to short-circuit the process by forcing Miers to quit.
She deserves a hearing, and will get one.
I certainly hope someone brings this up at the KRLA870 talkfest on Sunday night in Glendale...he was on yesterday saying how he would be slamming Mike Gallager and Dennis Prager with his superior intellect...
The talkfest still has seats, since it is overpriced.
Thank goodness we live in America! If some of us were in a country like the former Iraq, they'd be missing thier tongue or typing fingers by now.
Hope everyone can express opinions without resorting to personal attacks. Don't think that's permitted here.
I'm looking forward to the Hearings and having a chance to hear from Miers herself. Being a warrior...(heh)...I got my ammo stockpiled and ready to unload on the Senate when I have made up my mind to support or not to support.
Oh yeah....it ain't nice to litter the thread with "bloody bodies". Messes up muh spit-shine! [grin!]
Their logic has become the logic of the Democrats, they are attempting to justify the Miers nomination in reverse... instead of stating what makes a good nominee and then showing how Miers has those qualities, they've instead had to look at Miers and then try to say all her 'attributes' or better yet, LACK OF ATTRIBUTES, makes her a good candidate.
It's like listening to Air America with these people... logic thrown completely out the window!
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.