AUSTIN,
Texas -- Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea
leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the
White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George
W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both
law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Aside from that bothersome little matter, the Miers appointment is like
that of John Roberts -- could've been worse. Not as bad as Edith Jones,
not as bad as Priscilla Owen -- and you should see some of our boy judges
from Texas.
Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment,
with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist
is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith
alone.
She is enrolled in the Valley View Christian Church of Dallas, which she
attended for at least 20 years before moving to Washington five years
ago. Among that church's other members is Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme
Court, considered second only to Priscilla Owen as that court's most adamant
anti-abortion judge.
According to Miers' friends, she was pro-choice when a young woman, but
later changed her mind as a result of a Christian experience of some kind.
Those who spoke of this did not know her well enough to say whether it
had been a born-again experience or simply a different understanding of
theology.
Miers had the support of feminists when she ran for office first in the
Dallas bar and later when she became the first woman president of the
Texas Bar Association, even though the feminists were aware she was anti-choice.
At that time, the far more conservative TBA was at odds with the American
Bar Association and sometimes threatened to withdraw from the national
organization. Miers was considered a moderate in that she did not want
to withdraw from the ABA, but favored a proposal to change the organization's
stance from support for abortion rights to a position of neutrality.
One of Miers' key backers was Louise Raggio, a much-revered Dallas feminist
lawyer. The women lawyers groups favored Miers despite her stand on abortion
because she was a candidate acceptable to the Establishment, thus making
her electable as a woman.
Miers sometimes took women judicial candidates through her very prestigious
firm Liddell, Sapp for the obligatory meet 'n' greet and even donated
to Democratic candidates. Both these behaviors were well within the conventions
of Dallas city and judicial politics, particularly in the 1980s. Dallas
city politics are nonpartisan, and rather like Texas tea ("sweet
or un?") come in only two flavors -- Establishment or less Establishment.
Miers qualifies as ur-Establishment, despite "being a girl,"
as few of the old dinosaurs still put it. The slightly feminist tinge
to her credentials is a plus, but she is quite definitely anti-abortion.
She ran for city council in 1989 as a moderate, but struggled during her
interview with the lesbian/gay coalition. (At the time, it would have
been considered progressive to even show up.) The Dallas Police Department
did not then hire gays or lesbians, and when asked about the policy, Miers
replied the department should hire the best-qualified people, the classic
political sidestep answer.
When pressed, she said she did believe one should be able to legally discriminate
against gays, and it is the recollection of two of the organization's
officers that the response involved her religious beliefs.
Miers' church states on its website that it believes in biblical inerrancy,
full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely
upon accepting Jesus Christ. Everyone else is going to hell.
I have said for years about people in public life, "I don't write
about sex, drugs or rock 'n' roll." If I had my druthers, I wouldn't
write about the religion of those in public life, either, as I consider
it a most private matter. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution
because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious
persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy's 1960
statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public
servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public
service.
Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion
into governance -- and who themselves believe they are beset by people
determined to "drive God from the public square."
This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by
those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging
and serious split in this country, and I believe we all need to think
long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.
As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of
separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the
ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
