Choking On The Dom

This is a must-read. Mark Levin absolutely disembowels Hugh Hewitt over the Miers nomination on Hewitt's radio show. It's a near-perfect summary of both sides of the entire discussion.

The best part:

HH: But Mark, what I'm saying is that the conservative critics, not only will they not wait for the arguments to be made...

ML: Well, we have to wait.

HH: ...at the hearings, they are denying all the other traditional evidences of acceptability. For example, Judge Ken Starr calls her terrific.

ML: Look, I'm not taking a popularity contest. If we want to go down the list of conservatives, Bob Bork says she's a disaster. Okay?

HH: Again, it's not a popularity contest. It's a question about why are, all of a sudden, the rules of evidence about people we do not know suspended?

ML: Where do I have to go to find her judicial philosophy? To a Chinese restaurant and crack open a fortune cookie? Where am I going to find her judicial philosophy?

And a moment or two later:

HH: So O'Connor came out of the box. No one opposed her. Eight years later...

ML: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You just cited Ken Starr on Harriet Miers. It was Ken Starr who vetted Sandra Day O'Connor.

HH: Yes, I know. He was a young man, and he made a big mistake.

When you filter through all the haze, Levin directly asks Hewitt one simple question at least a half a dozen times: "What's her judicial philosophy?" And Hewitt has no answer to the question. He ducks, he obfuscates, he throws out names of people who might possibly know her judicial philosophy. What he doesn't do (and indeed what he can't do) is actually tell us what her judicial philosphy is or where we can find it.

Republicans have put seven of the nine current justices on this disasterous Supreme Court. So no, "trust me" doesn't cut it. There's been too much trust. It's now time for some evidence.