Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Hugh the Party Hack Strikes Again!
Although he links to the original article in the Wall Street Journal penned by Judge Bork this morning, Hugh Hewitt continues to show us that he is in and of the world of politics to the point that he can only be described as a party hack. His latest diatribe against Judge Bork is based on a very selective reading of Judge Bork's analysis of Miers qualifications and an odd interpretation of Bork's analysis of Miers evangelical status that in no way can be considered to be contemptuous of her faith. Rather, Judge Bork is contemptuous of the idea that Miers' faith should be considered to be the constitutional qualification as he should be if that were brought up about any one nominated to the Supreme Court.
In reality, Judge Bork shows that Miers is a poor writer, a muddled thinker, and lacks any credentials that would indicate that she has any serious grasp of weighty constitutional issues. Read Judge Bork's opinion piece and then Hewitt's and you will see that Prof. Hewitt has done an extremely poor job of summarizing Judge Bork's position.
Frankly, it is hard to see how Hewitt keeps his job as a professor of constitutional law at Chapman University Law School when he appears to think that opposition to Roe is the necessary and sufficient qualification in a Supreme Court candidate. The overly simplistic comment by Hewitt in regards to Roe shows that maybe he does not have a true grasp of the severity of the constitutional issues that the court faces every year in areas other than abortion rights. I find that hard to believe given Hewitt's past statements on other issues before the Court, but his party hack position on the Miers nomination seems to have erased other vital issues from his memory bank. His logic is now as muddled as Miers.
In reality, Judge Bork shows that Miers is a poor writer, a muddled thinker, and lacks any credentials that would indicate that she has any serious grasp of weighty constitutional issues. Read Judge Bork's opinion piece and then Hewitt's and you will see that Prof. Hewitt has done an extremely poor job of summarizing Judge Bork's position.
Frankly, it is hard to see how Hewitt keeps his job as a professor of constitutional law at Chapman University Law School when he appears to think that opposition to Roe is the necessary and sufficient qualification in a Supreme Court candidate. The overly simplistic comment by Hewitt in regards to Roe shows that maybe he does not have a true grasp of the severity of the constitutional issues that the court faces every year in areas other than abortion rights. I find that hard to believe given Hewitt's past statements on other issues before the Court, but his party hack position on the Miers nomination seems to have erased other vital issues from his memory bank. His logic is now as muddled as Miers.
