President Will, Justice Powell and Chief Justice Wilkinson (HUGH HEWITT slaps little George Will)

HughHewitt.com ^ | October 22, 2005 09:47 AM PST | Hugh Hewitt

[Checkers]

George Will is quite rightly recognized as among the two or three finest pundits of the last 25 years. Put aside his bow ties and his very well known love of baseball: Will has consistently produced entertaining and insightful prose over a very long period of time. It is simply wrong to reject Will as "no big deal."

But he can and does throw spokes, and he did so in Sunday's column.

From Will's column:

"Last week's ruling divided the justices into unlikely cohorts, thereby providing a timely reminder that concepts such as ``judicial activism,'' ``strict construction'' and ``original intent'' have limited value in explaining or predicting the court's behavior."

Oops. Sorry. That was Will's May 22, 2005 column.

Here's Will's column:

"In Monday's decision, which of the justices were liberal, which were conservative? Which exemplified judicial activism, which exemplified restraint? Such judgments are not as easy as many suppose."

Oops. Sorry again. That was later in May. Try this excerpt:

"Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises ``judicial restraint'' and deference to -- it sometimes seems -- almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government."

Let's try one more:

"In the last decade alone, the Rehnquist court, in an unprecedented flurry of activism, has struck down more than three-dozen enactments by the people's representatives in Congress. Are you for such judicial activism or are you for helping us go to Hell? Or is this the fallacy of the false alternatives?"

George Will has been writing a lot lately about SCOTUS, including Sunday's column about the Miers nomination that opens with the assertion that the nomination "discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it." But the keys to putting this broadside into context are Will's preference for Judge Harvey Wilkinson, a distinguished jurist who did not impress the president, and, crucially, Will's assertion that "Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell [was] the embodiment of mainstream conservative jurisprudence."

...

George Will has a lot of opinions about the SCOTUS, and he expresses them well. He makes sense. George Will is certainly no ConLaw scholar, nor even a professor of a different branch of the law, or even a lawyer. He is,rather, a bright, hard-working, indeed superb craftsman of language.

George Will could serve ably on SCOTUS.

But so too can and will Harriett Miers, and all the aspersions in Will's deep well of such things won't change that fundamental fact. Nor can he erase his instant rejection of Miers or the insult he delivered the president when he did so: Bush, wrote Will on October 4, has "neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution." Will's hero, and mine, Ronald Reagan, made what conservatives might consider two giant mistakes in nominating Sandra Day O'Conor and Anthony Kennedy, but both were better on the use of race in conferring rewards or penalties than Will's model, Justice Powell, who it should be remembered gave us Bakke which led to Bollinger.

(Aside: I see many on the web are exercised about Harriet Miers' support for affirmative action in the private setting of support for resolutions of the Texas Bar urging quotas in hiring at private law firms. It is not a policy with which I would agree either, but it also not a matter of constitutional law, unless under Brentwood the action of the Texas Bar in urging private firms to set strict goals has converted into a state action. Don't know what Brentwood is? Or the state action doctrine? Not many people do. But those that don't ought not to be confusing ConLaw with the private decisions of private firms while agruing that this policy makes Miers suspect on Bollinger. Now, if she supported a soft line on the Bollinger cases, that would be a legitimate area of concern, but not the Texas Bar resolutions.)

How many conservative critics of Miers agree with George Will that Justice Powell was the "embodiment of mainstream conservative jurisprudence?" If not, don't cite Will's column as an argument for dismissing Miers. Powell's ABA credentials, btw, were quite stellar. Here's the brief bio of Justice Powell:

"A Virginian by birth, Lewis Powell spent most of his life in the Tidewater State. He rose to the top of his profession when he was elected president of the American Bar Association in 1964."

Powell was a moderate before he joined the Court. He served on local and state boards of education at a time when there were strong demands to resist racial desegregation. With a Supreme Court in balance ideologically, Powell was cast in the middle of several important issues during his tenure. His vote decided the Court's first confrontation with abortion and affirmative action.

Not just wrong on Bakke, but also wrong on Roe. Just like George Will was wrong on the first President Bush,whom will tagged a "lap dog," part of the conservative critique that helped bring us Bill Clinton.

And especially, in this column, wrong on faith. Study this paragraph from Sunday closely:

"Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself."

First, I have to note that Will allowed his love of language to cripple his argument. "Incense defense" sounds wondeful, but is so bizarre in the context of an evangelical nominee as to raise the question of whether Will intentionally set out to offend.

But so do his missiles about "crude" people. Who are they? James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Jay Sekulow, Lino Graglia, Ken Starr? Four out of five are evangelicals. Does Will equate evangelical faith with crudeness?

And what, exactly, does "crudely obsessed with abortion" mean? Rod Dreher of NationalReview.com's The Corner thought this Will column quite devastating to Miers' nomination supporters. Does Rod agree that seriousness about abortion is "crude?" Does K-Lo? Does William F. Buckley?

It is disappointing to see both Judge Bork and George Will run off the cliff in the same week, and to do so with such intemperate rhetoric. (What does Judge Bork think of think of Justice Powell, I wonder?)

But I am certain that Ronald Reagan --who asked George Will to prep him for debates and who nominated Robert Bork-- would have nothing of the assault on Harriet Miers. Nothing. At. All.

A final note. I joke with Dennis Prager a week ago that George Will's instant rejection of Miers was part of "baseball envy" on Will's part. I am not sure who knows more --really knows-- about the game, Bush or Will?

But I don't think W ever second guessed his manager when, in the top of the sixth, the manager made a decision the owner found inscrutable.

That's the difference between an owner and a sportswriter. One lives to win. The other lives to write good copy.

...

[nopardons]

Try to actually read my post, ducky. If you are then still having a problem identifying the points, then get someone to help you.

[Checkers]

"Hewitt is a poseur conservative, always has been."

Was that before or after he worked for Reagan?

Come on people...

[onyx]

You're way behind. New articles claim Laura Bush selected her. Then just today, we have the WT claiming that Andrew Card picked her.

[counterpunch]

Hey Stellar, you should be ashamed of yourself, for so many and varied reasons, that it should make you head spin. But then, pots never do "get it". :-)

Stellar made a specific charge and provided the damning evidence.
You on the other hand are just throwing around rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

[duckln]

If you are then still having a problem identifying the points, then get someone to help you.

Trying the old slipperue are you? Upshot is you don't have 3 points or you lack the ability to clearly delineates them. Is it the former or the latter?

[onyx]

Give it a rest.

It violates FR rules to bring posts meant to incite from other threads, but you won't ever see nopardons hitting 'abuse' -- she replies and holds her own.

[nopardons]

You don't know that for a fact. But, even IF true, it IS the president and only the president, who picks the nominee.

O'Connor was NOT known to Reagan, yet, when all was said and done, it was his choice and his alone, to send her nomination to the Senate. The same is true of his Ginsberg and then Kennedy choices, after Bork was BORKED.

Pick out any president, anyone at all and it is always and ONLY his final say so.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp, ducky?

[Colonial Warrior]

President Bullwinkle here with an equal time looney commentary:

If I Were President: Speech on Nominating a Supreme Court Justice

NOTE: This post contains naughty language, up to and including a synonym for a donkey. Yes, if I were President, I would swear more often.

Liberals and the American People, I come before you today to explain what I am seeking in a new Supreme Court Justice. Some think there needs to be special qualifications to be a member of the Supreme Court, but I would like to remind you of something:

THE CONSTITUTION IS ONLY LIKE THREE FRICK'N PAGES LONG!

Theoretically, anyone with a sixth-grade level of reading comprehension should be able to check if something is allowed by the Constitution. Instead we have all this precedent crap and who knows what else to complicate the hell out of what should be a simple thing. What's really needed here? Years and years of a legal education or just an hour reading the actual document in question here?

Some have asked if there will be litmus test based on the Roe v. Wade decision.

OF COURSE THERE WILL BE!

And it hasn't nothing to do with abortion, either. It's just that anyone who thinks that Roe v. Wade is a sane Supreme Court decision should not only not be a Supreme Court Justice, he should not be a Supreme Court janitor. I mean, come on; the majority opinion spelled out things based on trimesters! Now, simple question: Is that something out of the Constitution or something pulled out of one's ass? And should judgments on law be based on the Constitution or what comes out of one's ass?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Anyhoo, appointing a Justice is still an important thing, because it is a lifetime appointment. Then again, I can always kill them and pardon myself - yet another check and balance. And it's an option I may use if some of the more choice idiots in the Supreme Court don't decide to retire.

And that's all I had to say about that. God bless.

Author Unknown

[etradervic]

Will is the Old Media idea of a conservative.

[trubluolyguy]

(Hugh Hewitt slaps little George Will)

---

I am surprised he had the time between kissing butt and licking shoe leather in the White House.

[Checkers]

"What was Ann Coulter's "valid concern about John Roberts? Can you even name two? She couldn't and didn't."

When Ann went nuts against Roberts, she officially entered Klayman Kountry.

[clintonh8r]

The Amen Corner would apparently like to see the First Amendment temporarily suspended when it comes to the president's SC nominations.

[trubluolyguy]

The Worthless Miracle
Since Jul 28, 2005

---

Thank you for that, some of the rest of us hadn't figured out how to tell when someone else had joined up.


(sarcasm/off)

[Stellar Dendrite]

LOL!!! nice comeback...

[nopardons]

Or worse.

I have no idea why she went after Roberts and I don't think that she knows why she did so either.

[duckln]

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp, ducky?

I agree absoluely, the president does the picking. That is not the question. Do you know what the question is?

[trubluolyguy]

After reading Will for over 30 years I believe he is the true mental midget.

---

And yet you read him for over thirty years.

[Checkers]

"Spare me the crap.
Another member said something you didn't like, something contrary to your own opinion, so you pulled up his member page and used the date he joined as an ad hominem attack as an attempt to discredit him.

It was low, irrelevant, and not at all admirable."

How is posting the date a member joined an ad hominem attack?

Sounds like you're the one full of, to use your phrase, crap.

[counterpunch]

I am surprised he had the time between kissing butt and licking shoe leather in the White House.

Hell, I'm surprised Hugh even had the opportunity to read the Will piece.
I didn't realize the Washington Post delivered to Hewitt's rectum.

[nopardons]

Stellar broke FR's posting rules.

I am an HTML moron, but even IF I could do links, I would not scour old threads and CCP stuff, with which to indict him.

The charge was puerile, school yard bullying, and off topic.

This was baiting and pushing, to start a flame war. I didn't and won't fall for the "bait".

I post facts. I stay on topic. Why don't you try to do the same?