"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Calling Hugh Hewitt for a Justification

Hugh Hewitt is one of the most ardent defenders of the Miers nomination, referring to it as "a B+ pick." I defer somewhat to Hugh in the normal course of events because he is often right, but this time he is a Bush homer to the limit.

The following line demonstrates the degree to which he is deceiving himself:

Yes, I wanted Judge Luttig or Judge McConnell, but the president wanted Miers, and I don't for a minute believe it is because of friendship, but because of W's understanding of the importance of the Court.

I'd like to know how you could possibly bring Luttig and McConnell into the conversation and then suggest the Miers pick was because of the importance of the court. I'd love to see Hugh defend his statement by explaining in what way Miers excels Luttig, McConnell, or any of the excellent female appellate judges who have been mentioned. He can't defend his statement in that way. That leaves us with friendship and personal comfort level, which are clearly the wrong criteria for the selection.

My own take is that Hewitt has generally been virtually uncritical in his support for Bush and that he reflexively supports Miers because he was also part of the White House Counsel's office. It's personal and organizational loyalty all the way. When it comes to the law, that attitude won't cut it.

8 comments:

mdvoutlook.com said...

I'm sorry, but I'm with Sam and Hugh on this one, and maybe not for all the same reasons. I think too many conservatives have lost their mind on this one, although I basically agree with all their points. Tony Blankley has said it best, and I think the wisest of all. You can find his take here: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonyblankley/2005/10/05/159417.htmlp

Tlaloc said...

Blakley's thesis is fatally flawwed since it relies on the idea that meirs is what the right could get as opposed to the justices they wanted. With a comfortable majority in both houses and the threat of the nuclear option Bush could get a far more qualified and yet conservative jurist.

He's furthermore mistaken as to the Democratic confusion. That confusion so far as I have seen boils down to this: do we take this unqualified jurist who will likely spurn the right's agenda, or at the very least make no meaningful impact, or do we hold ou for someone fitting to sit on the bench and end up with another *gag* Scalia? Quite the pickle for them. My guess is that they'll mostly go opposition because it's the path of least resistance.

mdvoutlook.com said...

Mr. tlaloc, I may disagree with your assessment of the fatal flaw in Blakely's piece, but your fatal flaw is assuming getting one of "our guys" on the court is a slam dunk. In case you haven't looked at the Senate of late, those 55 Republicans include quite a few "moderates" who given Bush's troubles might very well peel off and the nomination go down in flames. It's a judgement call and as much as I would prefer a different course of action, it's real easy sitting on the sideline to huff and puff about how much Bush has "betrayed the cause". I don't buy it, and as I've said elsewhere I'll have to trust Bush on this one.

James Elliott said...

The odds that Miers will spurn the rightward agenda is rather small. Her past predilictions notwithstanding, she is now an extremely conservative individual. Like Roberts, she simply has no track record. And without the paper trail, attacking her seems churlish, which places Dems in a tight spot.

I think y'all will be pleasantly surprised, and I'll be contemplating inventing the contraception bomb.

Tlaloc said...

"The odds that Miers will spurn the rightward agenda is rather small. Her past predilictions notwithstanding, she is now an extremely conservative individual."

Based on what? There's nothing to indicate she's anything but a person who has sought favor by telling the president what he wants to hear. That's a trait not limited to conservatives unfortunately.

James Elliott said...

For over 20 years? No one's that good. She's a crazy lady. You can see it in her eyes shining bright with the light of zealotry and the Pavlovian way she salivates at the mere mention of the president...

Bush is cunning. He's nominated people without substantial judicial records. He prizes loyalty, but he's also dogmatic.

Beware! Beware the Ides of October!! They spell DOOOOOOM for us all!!!

Tlaloc said...

"For over 20 years? No one's that good. She's a crazy lady. You can see it in her eyes shining bright with the light of zealotry and the Pavlovian way she salivates at the mere mention of the president..."

I don't know if you've noticed this but Bush isn't the most perceptive. Putting something past him for 20 years might be as hard as taking the dog for a leak. Lets not forget the now infamous peering into Putin soul afterall.

Besides which I've read several lawyers say that a lot of texas lawyers do the whole "conservative face at work" thing because their clients are by and large wanting conservatives representing them. Furthermore she's known to be extremely tight lipped about her personal politics which tends to support the idea that she may be personally far from conservative. Lastly as someone who has no established doctrine of jurisprudence in constitutional matters she's rather vulnerable to the prevailing winds of the culture.

I'm not guaranteeing that she'll disappoint social conservatives but I'd say it's a real open question. Call it 50/50 from where I sit.

Hunter Baker said...

I'm just not a pure realpolitiker, particularly when it comes to the court. There is a way to do things and this is just not it. The decision-making process is clearly very flawed and it causes me to distrust the president on everything else.