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.
LOL!!
Lacking anything out of Miers' mouth, and little from the White House, Hugh Hewitt has been the only Republican who has really come out swinging for Miers. Of course Hugh has never met a RINO he didn't like, so his defense of Miers is not surprising.
Now, his own prior comments take him out of the game. The White House is going to have to find someone else to carry their water for them on this ridiculous nomination.
Cboldt is just kidding around, Rodney
How embarassing for Hewitt. He has totally lost his credibility.
Is he looking for a job in the Bush Administration? Does anyone know if he has applied?
Did you catch the thread last night where a FREEPER to go unnamed (as I suspect he was drinking and doesn't need more embarassment than he already subjected himself to last night) was repeatedly accusing miers-skeptics of 'treason?' I've been called a lot of names, some with good cause, but last night on FR was the first time I've ever been called a traitor.
That said, BOTH sides ought to turn their amps way down below 11.
If Miers doesn't quit I would think she would be conformed - in a landslide.
What makes this especially rich is how HH extolls the internet's ability to hold the MSM accountable.
Hoisted by his own:
I dunno... weren't his ratings struggling?
Good job in any case for the post. Devastating indictment of Hewitt.
Lack of clear judicial trail anway. I give her the benefit of the doubt as to being a very nice person, chariable, highly competent attory and good organizer. I just don't see the Constitutional or judicial restraint philosophies.
It is plain blinkers to go into a basically balance-of-powers selection, while avoid the discussion about how bolluxed the balance of powers is. Blind leading the blind, it is.
HH has said repeatedly that Miers would not be his pick, wouldn't even be near the top of his list. He has said his views were overruled by the Prez, but he will support the nominee as someone who appears to be genuinely conservative.
I don't like the Miers pick, but am undecided on this. Seems to me the President would look even weaker by withdrawing Miers than he was in the first place by nominating a stealth candidate. I'm not sure a Luttig or McConnell could be confirmed in the debacle of a withdrawal. If withdrawal isn't a good option, then Hugh's right, we either vote with the Prez or with Harry Reid.
Whatta mess. The White House really bungled this one.
This is a great post and find!
Did you catch the thread last night where a FREEPER to go unnamed (as I suspect he was drinking and doesn't need more embarassment than he already subjected himself to last night) was repeatedly accusing miers-skeptics of 'treason?
I'll give Hewitt credit in that he did not have Radioblogger scrub the transcript.
PWNT!
Ah! another Anonymous Source! Such profiles in courage!
>>>Your Honor, Mr. Hewiit is GUILTY of fraud in his support for Miers.<<<
Thanks for the post. Now I understand why I lost interest in his radio program a long time ago.
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.