Patterico's Pontifications

10/9/2005

Don’t Pick on Hugh Hewitt

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Judiciary — Patterico @ 11:25 am



This is overdue, but I want to express my agreement with Captain Ed that folks should not pick on Hugh Hewitt. He’s a good guy, and we need to try to keep this discussion respectful.

5 Responses to “Don’t Pick on Hugh Hewitt”

  1. Then let me respectfully point out that HH is dead wrong on this issue. He’s a good guy and usually on the mark, but now isn’t the time to blindly follow, now is the time for principled leadership, and it isn’t coming from the White House.

    There’s an old Chineese proverb: When you hear the wind in the tower, the storm isn’t far off.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  2. I agree he’s dead wrong, but we don’t have to insult him when we say so. I hear people have been calling him all sorts of names; that’s not necessary.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  3. Are you trying to make me feel ashamed that I spit coffee through my nose and onto my keyboard when I read Hubris’ piece?

    Look, I don’t expect Hugh to say “just trust him” when people like Luttig or McConnell are passed over. That at least get’s a “ok, Hannity, what have you done with Hugh?” [don’t know where Hannity came down on this, btw]

    I expect some other commentators to unconditionally line up behind W or to treat judicial nominations as if they’re all about abortion policy. I would have to guessed that Hugh would do what he did when Roberts was nominated — give us good reasons why the nominee was good or bad or at least mention some questions worth asking. Instead, we get “just trust him.” He deserves some heat for that. Respectful, courteous heat, but heat nonetheless.

    [Agree entirely. He deserves heat, but it should be courteous. Of course I’m not trying to make you feel bad for laughing at the Hubris piece; after all, I did link it. I assume he didn’t consider the link (or that piece) rude. I think he’s got a sense of humor, and that was damn funny. I think it was well within the range of fair comment. — Patterico]

    TNugent (6128b4)

  4. It’s so evident that Harriet Miers is another David Souter waiting to happen. She’s pro-affirmative action as shown by her actions on the U. Michigan Grutter case, and that’s the biggest issue along with Roe to come to the court. How can the USA survive as a unified nation if ethnic groups are encouraged to go after the goodies based on numbers and their racial identification, rather than their performance? How many smart foreigners are being driven away from the US by the knowledge that they’ll be instantly discriminated against upon coming here?

    The answer is, the USA probably won’t survive much longer if we have justices on SCOTUS who can’t figure out that equal protection means you don’t discriminate. In picking Miers, Bush has simply chosen someone who would fall for the same idiotic sophistry as David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor. That’s not acceptable, and Hugh Hewitt is a fool if he fails to recognize this. I personally know dozens of longtime, loyal Republicans who will never contribute to the GOP again, and stay home in 2006 and 2008 if Miers gets confirmed. This is an incalculable error by Bush, and he needs to wise up to this– and nominate someone like Luttig or Brown– immediately.

    Nomoresouters (4fd023)

  5. I find HH blog to be very decent and generous. I am not educated enough to debate here so I found an article and comments that are a little different take on Mier and expresses what I feel but can not express.

    Austin Bay’s wife wrote an excellent article today and drew the best comments. Roy said “If the law has grown so complex that even one of the top 100 lawyers in the country is not qualified to interpret it without years of study then our whole society and way of life is in danger”. His entire comment speaks for me. Everyone that is still against Miers should read all of it. We common grunts actually have a lot of these feelings and view of the world. That is why we voted for Bush.

    owl (bf1b95)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0638 secs.