Eugene Volokh expands on the point first raised by Patterico:
Now I have no reason to think that Harriet Miers will indeed "turn out" "a lot like Potter Stewart" "in results." But I'm not sure I see why, if Hugh thinks she would so turn out, he thinks that the Stewart analogy cuts in her favor. Is it that (1) I'm mistaken in my views about what results Hugh himself would prefer? That (2) Hugh doesn't really care much about the results, and is supporting Harriet Miers even though she might well reaffirm abortion rights, vote against evenhanded school aid programs, or broadly protect pornography (again, a prediction that I would not make, but that seems consistent with Hugh's prediction that she'd be much like Potter Stewart)? Or that (3) Hugh thinks that Miers will turn out like Potter Stewart on most issues, but not on these issues? Or am I missing something else here?
These are fair questions that deserve a response. I think Volokh's second point is probably correct. Hewitt likely doesn't care about the long term results of Supreme Court jurisprudence. For Hewitt and his defenders, a partisan victory in the immediate political process is far more important that victory of substantive policy issues over the long term.
Perhaps the question should be this (and I am admittedly not the first one to consider it): What would Hewitt's reaction be if President Bush had nominated a clone of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Would he say, "A good B- candidate. We should trust the President."?
Posted by Justin Levine at October 14, 2005 06:44 PM | TrackBack