Harriet Miers - Trust me on this

A post wherein the Jollyblogger sticks his nose some place where it doesn't belong . . .

Apologies to those of you who have heard all of this from me before, but for new readers I'll explain why I say I'm sticking my nose in a place it doesn't belong.  The reason is that I generally stay away from politics here and there are two reasons for this.

The first reason is that I am the furthest thing in the world from a political insider - I have very limited knowledge of politics and I am afraid of getting too deep into the partisan stuff simply because this is not an area of expertise.

The second reason is that I subscribe to Jacques Ellul's notion of the political illusion - the illusion that the most pressing and important issues facing our day have political solutions.  I don't believe that, and in this highly politicized world we live in I think its healthy for some of us to not take politics too seriously.

Having said that, at the risk of talking out of both sides of my mouth, I do believe that politics plays an important role in our world today. I agree with many who say that one of the main reasons our country is in the shape it is in is because of a pietistic withdrawal from the world which characterized evangelicals over the last century, or maybe century and a half.  The reason we see so much godlessness in politics is not necessarily because evangelicals were overwhelmed by the forces of secularism, but rather because we withdrew from the political realm.  And, you know what happens when there is a vacuum.  Christians withdrew from politics and whoosh, the secularists came in just doing what secularists do.  So, all of the political activism over the last several decades has been playing catch-up for evangelical Christians. 

I also subscribe to Kuyper's notion that there is not one square inch of creation where Jesus Christ doesn't say "this is mine."  This certainly applies to the area of politics.

And so, to balance my views, I think there are two extremes we have to avoid.  The first extreme is the ultimization of politics, where we fall for the political illusion and begin to see all of life through a political lens.  That is the import of my first two points above.

But the second extreme is that of pietistic withdrawal, where Christians act as if politics are inconsequential.  To say that politics is not the most important thing is not to say that politics is not a very important thing.  Indeed, the political realm is a very important venue for Christian involvement and activism.  I lean toward the belief that politics is more a reflection of culture than anything else, but I also know that this can reflect culture as well as shape it.

And with that in mind, Christians do need to pay attention to what is going on with the nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy.

I have certainly not exhausted the information out there on Harriet Miers, in fact I have barely scratched the surface, but from everything I have read it seems clear that she is a woman of noble character, and a sister in Christ whose integrity is not in question.   But as others have brought up, these things, in and of themselves do not qualify her for the position.  She may be qualified, but these are not the only factors in it.

But there is one line of argument that I have seen a good deal of lately that is a bit troubling to me.  That is the "trust me," or "trust George," line of argumentation.  In several places I have heard that we need to trust the president on this.  While not dismissing the criticisms Hugh Hewitt has been asking us to trust the president on this.  And, Dr. James Dobson has asked Christians to trust him in his support for Miers.

It would be a caricature to suggest that either of these men, or others who are supporting Miers, are asking us to stick our heads in the sand, turn off our brains and take their word for it that she's qualified.  I think these "trust me" statements are something more akin to "let's give the President and Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt."   

I think that is a legitimate point insofar as it means "let's reserve judgment until we have given the president a chance to make his case."   My only concern is that we not take "trust me" too far and fail to demand that the President does make a case.

In that regard I would like to offer an analogy that I hope will have some traction with evangelicals.  This is the story of Paul and the Bereans in Acts 17:11:

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.  

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

One thing to notice is that the Bereans were commended for, in a sense, not trusting the apostle Paul.  Yes they gave him the benefit of the doubt - "they received the word with all eagerness."  But they didn't merely take him at his word - they examined the Scriptures daily to verify if he was speaking the truth.

In matters of eternal consequence Paul never played the "trust me" card.  Rather, it was the "examine me to see if what I am saying is true" card he played.  I, and many preachers I know, have made statements to our congregations that they ought not to trust us in the sense that they simply take our words for it when we preach.  They need to examine the Scriptures to see if what we are saying comports, and if not reject it and offer us brotherly correction.

And so the analogy is that, if a divinely ordained and inspired apostle didn't ask people to merely trust him on matters of eternal import, and if this same apostle commended those who carefully examined and verified what he said, ought we not to do something similar on lesser matters, like the President's nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

I'm not arguing for a "hermeneutic of suspicion" here, just saying that the President and his supporters ought to take upon themselves the burden of proof in showing that Harriet Miers is qualified for this position.  This is especially true in light of the reticence expressed by many conservative luminaries, particularly someone like George Will.

In a situation like this, Martin Luther's famous quip comes to mind that he would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.  Of course the best option is to be ruled by a wise Christian.  Miers is not a Turk in Luther's sense, and she is a Christian, we need to know that she is a "wise" Christian in the sense of having the wisdom she needs to sit on the Supreme Court.

By all means I am willing to trust the President and people like Hugh and Dr. Dobson, but give me a reason to.  This is not a case where these folks ought to be telling us they have inside information, withholding it, and then asking us to trust them.  And evangelicals are the last people who ought to buy into this line of reasoning.  The nomination of someone for the Supreme Court is too important of an issue to ask us to trust and not to verify.

As for others who are speaking about this, check out . . .

Terry Mattingly at Get Religion

Charmaine Yoest at Reasoned Audacity - here, here and here.  BTW - congrats on your 100,000th visitor Charmaine!

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost - here, here, and here.

Will at Dignan's 75 Year Plan.

LaShawn Barber, is past the point of caring but provides a bunch of links for those who do.

Byron at a ticking time blog . . .

Political Musings takes a leap of faith and supports Miers.

Comments

[Rick Ritchie]

My position, exactly.

And I don't care much for conservative arguments as to how advice and consent has been exercised most of the time in the past. (It would be ironic if in our desire to follow precedent, we ignored opportunities to screen out justices who would not follow precedents.) We do better when there is more scrutiny. When Bork was rejected, we got Thomas. To hear some conservatives squeal, you would think that that was when we got Ruth Bader Ginsburg! When conservatives get strained out, I think we'll only get better conservatives in. And I want to be able to strain out activist liberals the next time a Democrat gets to nominate a justice.

[John Luke]

You wrote, "The nomination of someone for the Supreme Court is too important of an issue to ask us to trust and not to verify."

Amen to that, but we need to take it one step further: Is Harriet Miers the best we can do at this point in our history?

It is not sufficient to verify that Ms. Miers is a "good" Christian (read: she agrees with the beholder). There are far more qualified people out there. Not because they are "better" Christians -- because they are better at showing that they may become a moral and intellectual force on the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers has shown loyalty, and that she can run a clean Texas state lottery.

Harriet Miers, as a presidential buddy lacks the intellectual gravitas that one might find in, to name but two examples, a Michael Luttig or Janice Brown.

The whole notion of evangelicals judging Miers on her piety stinks. Firstly, because it is unchristian to judge such a thing. Secondly, because it is wrong to place any kind of a "religious test" on a SCOTUS nominee.

We (politically conservative Christians) objected, mightily, and properly, when John Roberts' Catholicism was questioned. Let us at least be consistent with Harriet Miers.

Best solution? Ms. Miers graciously withdraws; President Bush nominates a heavyweight jurist and goes to the mat for him or her.

[Arch Van Devender]

David, Old Buddy, Old Pal
I disagree..
Harriet Meirs: My 2 Cents worth ( an answer to David) - posted on my site this morning.

[charmaine]

David: excellent, excellent post. I was really not sure where you were going with it, but at the end thought it was so well nuanced. Actually one of the better things I've seen written on this issue. Maybe you should write about politics more often!

(And thanks for the links and the congrats!)

[Beth]

One thing you can take into account in the meantime (until the hearings) is Bush's previous federal judicial appointments, which have all been excellent.

Rick Ritchie: Actually, when Bork got Borked, we got Anthony Kennedy, who's unfortunately no Clarence Thomas. I don't want another Justice Kennedy.

[Beth]

BTW, the comment from "Anne" is spam. That one is duplicated all over the blogosphere.
(Just so you know!)

[Jon S.]

Please give us the reference for Jacques Ellul's notion of the political illusion. Which book? It sounds like a book to put on my list of things I hope to someday have time to read.

[Rick Ritchie]

My mistake. Ouch.

[Insider]

State of U.S. Courts. . .

Consider this:

Open Letter

October 23, 2005

United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544

Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)

Dear All:

Please be advise of the following criminal activity.

On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.

In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.

At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.

The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”

Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).

Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.

In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).

I demand an immediate investigation.

Respectfully,
(Name Removed)