A couple of points, catching up here on Hewitt’s critique of Will. Hewitt suggests the phrase “incense defense” in conjunction with Miers is offensive (“raises the question of whether Will intentionally set out to offend”). Please. Inapt maybe, but not offensive. Then he asks whether Will is saying that evangelical faith is crude. What Will clearly states is that people who invoke Miers’ faith as a kind of qualification for the court are making a crude argument crudely. (But I think Will makes a leap from this to the notion that these spinners think conservatives yearn for an “unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself”; it is more likely that they just have a hard time coming up with other arguments on Miers’ behalf.) Finally, Hewitt bizarrely argues that if you don’t accept Will’s favorable view of Justice Powell, you can’t cite his anti-Miers column. Huh? What a non-sequitur. If you like one Will column about a Supreme Court nominee, you are under no obligation to agree with other things he has written about the court.