Posted on 10/03/2005 8:52:39 AM PDT by DallasMike
Marvin Olasky talks to Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht on Harriert Miers on the World Magazine website. For those who don't know, Olasky is an evangelical Christian intellectual in the mold of Chuck Colson. Nathan Hecht is ardently pro-life.
This begins a series of seven posts on Harriet Miers, based on interviews with those who know her. Some background for the first five: I spoke yesterday with Nathan Hecht, the Texas Supreme Court justice who is a prolife hero for strongly supporting parental notification laws five years ago when a SCOTEX majority was scuttling them. Hecht, 55 and never married, and Harriet Miers, 60 and never married, have known each other for 30 years and are -- to quote Hecht -- "very close friends. We dated some. The relationship has been close: Platonic... We go to dinner, I go to Washington for special things."
Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church... in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her." On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."
Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an orginalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." He notes that her legal practice involved writing contracts rather than tort law, so she was always looking at the plain meaning of the words: "Originalist." He also says she's not a social butterfly who will be swayed by Washington dinner table conversation: "She goes to the dinners she's supposed to go to. She's not on the social circuit."
I know Valley View Christian Church through my pro-life work. I can't say whether any individual member is pro-life, but I would be surprised if someone who is not pro-life occupied a leadership position.
Hey, I can take it! By the way, I took great effort on my blogsite to explain to my fellow evangelicals who John Leo is (Catholic Outreach chairman to the Republican party) and the teachings of John Roberts' church.
I think we both can agree that promoting a culture of life is one area where Catholics and Evangelicals can work hand-in-hand. Our quibbles are the arguments of sibling against sibling but Catholics and Evangelicals stand together against the powers of the world.
Mike, there are those here who hope to divide us Catholics from you Evangelicals on this nomination. If you spot this, ping me. I've got your back.
Mike182d: Assuming arguendo that you are Catholic, may this Catholic remind you that we will not win the social civil war without Catholic/Evangelical alliance. Your post does not help.
I read somewhere that she is a former Catholic.
Likewise. We're brothers in Christ and, though no one squabbles like brothers, we stick together if someone from the outside comes in to start a fight.
I'm convinced that Harriet Miers supports the culture of life and an originalist interpretation of the constitution. For that, we need to support her.
Let's hope so.
As a Catholic who is not at all thrilled with President Bush's nomination of Miss Miers, I must say that just about the only good news I have heard about the Miers nomination is that she is a devout Evangelical and thus my sister in Christ. My qualms about her nomination have nothing to do with her religion (which I view, as I said, as a plus) but with (i) her lack of credentials and (ii) the uncertainty regarding her judicial philosophy.
In my opinion, any Catholic who attacks Evangelicals for their religion, and any Evangelical who attacks Catholics for their religion, is doing the secularists' (and the Islamists') dirty work. Devout Christians need to stick together regardless of our religious differences, since when you get right down to it we have the same goals and aspirations.
That sounds like you want activist judges. Many Conservatives don't. There's a real difference between people who want strict Constitutionalists and ones who want activists with their opinions.
Bush said that he would choose Constitutionalists. I think he did. And I'm pleased.
BTW, the Constitution party won't get you activist Right-to-Life candidates either.
Just as hysterical, for sure.
21% of evangelical Christians voted for Kerry. 30% voted for Gore. 100% of Harriet Miers actually donated to Gore. Hmmmm....
I agree about the strict constitutionalist! It was activist justices and judges that got us to where we are. I don't want any more of them.
Amen!
ping
This is encouraging. I have a lot of respect for Olasky as a subscriber to his magazine for several years now. I already laid down my pitchfork and torch on another thread. But I will be ready to take them up again if necessary. ;^)
Rush brought out the fact that Harry Reid said nice things about Judge Roberts BEFORE he voted against him.
Schumer said that we know less about Miers than we did about Roberts. I would call that being nice to Miers, and give them time; just give them time, and you will hear plenty of things against Miers, especially from Schumer.
Pro-Life Bump.
Once, in the 1988 PRIMARY, not general, when Gore was still pro-life.
But don't let facts get in the way of your innuendo and slander. You certainly haven't previously...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.