Re: Matt Scully, Fred Barnes, and Brother Hugh
From Brother Hugh Hewitt:
Peter, Peter, Peter:
My post yesterday was not a post on why she was qualifed. It was a post
replying to the objection that the predsident and his staff could not possibly
know her judicial philosophy, a charge made by Frum, I think, and others.
I’m posting this reply from Hugh, Hugh, Hugh, but I’m not buying it. How could sitting on a committee with Miers, on which it was her job to vet the constitutional writings of other prospective nominees, possibly have clued Karl Rove in on Miers’ own judicial philosophy? Especially when she was supposed to be measuring the writings of prospective nominees only against the judicial philosphy of the President? If Miers were as dutiful and humble as everyone has claimed, she’d have made a point of keeping her own opinions out of it.
Anyway, I wish Ms. Miers luck in the hearings, as I’ve said. And until then, I’m signing off. For anyone wishing to see Hugh’s answer to this post–and I don’t doubt that he of the Ever-Supple Mind and Bottomless Good Humor will post one–I refer you to Hugh’s own website.