Harriet Miers, the Shifting Right, and Dred Scott

I was talking with my friend, Juan, the other day about Harriet Miers. His stance was that we aren't going to get anyone less objectionable, and there is some evidence that Miers may be somewhat moderate, so Dems should go ahead and go along with her nomination.

Apparently, Miers once stated that she supported civil rights for gays. As I told Juan, you can't take that to mean what it means today. Harriet Miers is a member of a strict conservative fundamentalist evangelical church. As someone who grew up attending churches like this, let me explain:

An "evangelical" is someone who believes the Bible is the literal word of God - every word within it is meant to be taken it its most common and ordinary sense as the 100% pure, unadulterated truth. As a preacher once said to me, "The Bible said Jonah was swallowed by a fish - not a whale. That means you can't talk about Jonah being in a whale because a whale isn't a fish. You have to believe it is a fish, but obviously a big enough one to hold a man. If the Bible meant whale, it would say whale. It doesn't. It's trying to show that God saved Jonah by divine intervention through a common fish." Yeah, it's a small point. You have to understand, though, that if they are going to argue that "fish" can't possibly mean "whale" (when did "whale" actually begin to refer to an animal that wasn't a fish?), then they are talking about the strictest literal interpretation possible.

A "fundamentalist" is someone who wants civil law to be written in accordance with, and under the authority of, divine law. There is no possible way for civil law to hold any authority when it violates divine law. Which, if you look at the paragraph above, and you take it with the Biblical warnings not to change one letter of the Bible, then you would very quickly see that it really wants a civil law that would prevent any interpretation or teaching of the Bible other than their own. You would literally be sent to jail for saying that Jonah was held in the belly of a whale, and not a fish.

"Conservative" is where all of the interpretation lies. It's what makes it imperative for Democrats and moderate Republicans to oppose Harriet Miers' nomination in the strongest possible way. You see, today's debate considers the biggest issue in gay "civil rights" to be marriage. I can assure you, this is not what Harriet Miers had on her mind in the late 1980s in Dallas. The proof of this lies directly below on that questionaire when she states that she opposed consensual sex that is considered to be an affront to God - because the fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of the Bible says very clearly that it is so. "Civil rights", to the woman who signed the questionaire, meant the right to vote, to own property, to be free from unlawful search and seizure. It most assuredly wass not, in any manner, meant to construe support for homosexuals having a legal union recognized by law.

It is important because of the two conservative activist judges already working on the Supreme Court - one of which, Clarence Thomas, has decided that prison is a good place to give birth. Or, to put it more succinctly, a convicted woman has lost the right to claim her body as her own. The state's right to not spend money is more important than a woman's right to have adequate medical care. You have to wonder if Justice Thomas has put ten seconds worth of thought of what will happen to the baby after it is born in a prison hospital wing. Does the state have a right to deny health care to the child, since it is technically the woman who is imprisoned and not the baby?

Well, that doesn't matter at all for Harriet Miers. Abortion is wrong, no matter what. In this best of all possible worlds, we should praise God that He has, in His infinite wisdom has decided that prison is, indeed, the best place for this child to be born. After all, our Lord was born in a feed stall and look how good He turned out!

They understand that they don't even have to rule on the case. After all, in just five short weeks, the law will have made the case moot - Missouri law does not allow abortions after 22 weeks. They can allow arguments to draw out, then drop the case for lack of standing. All the while, they are snickering up their Hallelujah sleeve that they have forced a woman to "pay the price of her sins" or "live up to her responsibility". All the while, they have condemned another child to a soul-destroying life.

Juan argued that the President will never nominate anyone more acceptable. I argued that it is unknown how acceptable Harriet Miers is. The stressing of her Evangelical faith is the equivalent of the President's Dred Scott debate comment. It's how the President is reaching out to his base without exposing his real position - or hers - because liberals are too damn stubborn to learn how to talk to Christians.

I agree that we are not going to get a liberal - or even a moderate - nominee out of this Administration. What we can do is force them to play openly and honestly and state what they are really trying to do. That was what the Dred Scott decision was really all about.

How Much Does it Cost to Buy a Justice?

Some info about Harriet Miers from The Institute on Money in State Politics:

Although not a prolific contributor to state-level political campaigns, Miers did give $30,357 to Republican candidates in Texas from 1994 to 2000, primarily to Bush.

Yeah, it isn't much, but how's this for managing a conflict-of-interest?

Miers, then the Bush-appointed chairwoman to the Texas Lottery Commission, gave $22,960 to
Bush for his 1998 re-election campaign.

She also maxed out her personal contributions to Bush's two Presidential campaigns - which is perfectly fine and is her right as a private citizen. I'm not exactly sure about making contributions to your boss, though. Some places tend to frown on that, for what should be obvious reasons.

In today's political world, it probably isn't possible to find someone who didn't give anything to anyone anywhere. However, giving huge chunks (and $23,000 isn't anything to sneeze at) of money to the person that appointed you to a pretty nice state job is a peek at how she might manage any future litigation that George W. Bush might be a party to in front of the Court.

It deserves to be examined and she should answer questions about it. But don't look for John Cornyn to ask them - he's one of the people she's given money to.

"Corruption" Defined as "What Others Do"

The following was originally posted at Xpatriated Texan and is currently cross-posted at BlueJersey.net. Xpatriated Texan is the online pen name of T.L. Hart, who occassionally cross-blogs here. The following post applies to New Jersey state politics.


Herb Jackson is definitely on to something. It's something so big that, apparently, most people can't see it.

You see, something is rotten in the Garden State - and it ain't the vegetables. It starts at Drumthwacket and ends all the way down at the sorry sotted roots of government in our counties and cities. It's "corruption" - as long as it's someone else doing it. Congressman Bob Menendez once took down a big political boss because of it - then he turned into the same kind of boss he got rid of. I've heard many complaints about Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester both handing out cash to buy-off county chairs. It's only bad if someone else does it, though.

Wikipedia has a good article on political corruption. I plan to use it as a template for exploring exactly how well New Jersey fits as the mold for political corruption. It's not just the people in the government - though that's part of it to be sure. It's the whole system. I'm sure Mr. Menendez looks in the mirror and sees the very same champion of people's rights that took down a corrupt mentor. I'm just not so sure that's what his district gets.

I want to make it clear, though, that corrupt politicians are usually very popular. If they weren't; then they'd never win re-election. In some ways, a political machine makes a politician incredibly responsive to his or her constituents - it's just that you have to pay a price for that responsiveness. Political corruption hurts because it forces people to pay a premium for what should be basic political services.

It bothers me, both as a patriotic American - and that doesn't mean the blind-love crazy kind - and as a Christian. America is built on the dream that all men are equal before the law - without the threat of some being more equal than others. It runs afoul of the Christian notion of leadership being built on service to mankind.

It stinks. This Garden needs some sunlight.