What's the Matter With Obama Supporters?

While Mrs. Miller occasionally indulges her guilty pleasure of following celebrities (at right, her favorite dress from this year's Oscars), one of my vices is following the law-gossip blog Above the Law (even further right, my pick for best dressed).

Anyway, last week an AtL post caught my eye: Obama, BigLaw, and Taxes (Or: Obama = $34,000 Paycut) As the title suggests, the post calculates the stiff tax increase an associate at a big firm would face under an Obama administration. But despite the fact that theseattorneys have a reputation of greedily jumping to whichever firm pays the most, a vast majority them are Obama supporters. What gives?

A few years ago, I stumbled over a book called What's the Matter With Kansas by Thomas Frank. The book's basic premise was that evil Republican strategists (often named Rove) had tricked working-class Kansans (and other middle Americans) to vote against their economic interests. Frank doesn't bother considering other explanations; after all, doesn't everyone know that those hillbillies are stupid?

Maybe it's cause I spent some of my childhood in southwest Missouri a couple hours from the Kansas border (I even attended the Walnut Valley Festival in Winfield once), but I can think of two other good explanations. First, I'd bet that there are many conservative Kansans whom would rather not "take from the rich and give to the poor" even when they are the poor. These folks would consider that practice to be "stealing." But even beyond that, I am certain that many Americans care about unborn babies, traditional marriage, national security, and a host of other issues more than their direct economic self-interest. But Mr. Frank, blinded by his Marxist-materialistic orthodoxy, just assumes that they've all been duped!

I wonder what Mr. Frank would say about these Obama-supporting lawyers? Would he berate them for allowing themselves to be duped by David Axelrod (Obama's Rove) and Will.i.am? It's probably safe to say, he wouldn't. He'd be quick to point out that they either think their taxes should be higher or that Obama's positions on other issues are worth taking a financial hit. 

All I am trying to say is that there's nothing "the matter" with Obama-supporting lawyers. They plan on voting for the candidate that best represents their values (I just happen to radically disagree with those values). I guess the real question is what's the matter with Mr. Frank that he can't give conservative Kansans the benefit of the doubt?

Strange love for McCain

I provided an all-too-thorough analysis of the presidential primary elections back in January. Now that the Republican Party has essentially selected John McCain, it seems time for an update. Instead of more of my bloviating, here is the quality analysis of a lawyer-friend of mine:

To quote the subtitle to Dr. Strangelove: "How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

McCain, in this case, being the bomb.

Well, before Super Tuesday, I put McCain's odds for winning the GOP nomination at 95%. Safe to say that number increased (I had McCain winning 620 delegates, I think he'll end up with 720ish).

So, as a matter of political reality, I've spent some time contemplating McCain. I think he's obviously better than the Dems on foreign policy. On judges (which I care about more, or view to be a more decisive issue), McCain is likely to support good Justices, even though I don't trust him.

I wrote quite passionately before with reasons not to trust McCain - Gang of 14 chief among them.

However, in a two-party race, James Dobson is wrong; it would be foolish to allow Clinton or Obama to appoint 5-6 Justices. Their picks definitely will set the clock back even further on Roe - not to mention the rest of Constitutional law.

I'd much rather trust Mitt or Huck to make those picks, but that's not my choice anymore. So, I've decided to start defending McCain on this regard. Even though I don't totally trust him, and will issue a big fat "I told you so" if he appoints Justice Souter type picks, I think our chances are way, way better with him in the Oval Office. We may not get a picks like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, but maybe we'll get someone like Senator Cornyn. For more on the judiciary aspect, I agree much of what Calabresi and McGinnis said in the WSJ (sans their spin on Gang of 14 and distrust of Mitt).

On the Gang of 14, the NRO editors said it better:

We believe that a President McCain would prefer to appoint conservative judges, for example. But would he fight for them or cut a deal with Pat Leahy? That is the fear that underlies the complaints about McCain's membership in the Gang of 14.

That's exactly my concern. But even with that concern, can I really say I'd rather risk Obama/Hillary picks? No. Not even close.

About all the domestic issues, McCain is very similar to Bush, and we I think we all agree that Bush was a less-than-ideal-but-better-than-the-alternative president. I'll take that choice again, any day. On immigration and campaign finance reform, Bush knifed us just as much, if not more so (expressly promising not to sign campaign finance reform before taking office).

On taxes, McCain is not totally committed, but again, marginally much better than the Dems who are constantly invoking class warfare rhetoric and basically calling for massive theft from the rich to give to the poor. McCain's theft is much less, and all moral normative claims aside, less theft is better than more theft.

Certainly McCain, the "Maverick," has enjoyed sticking his thumb in the eye of conservatives. But his electability is an asset, and the alternatives are grim.

Finally, I'll add that I think we may have over-estimated Mitt's electability. Despite my trying, I've been unable to move may of my strong conservative, Evangelical-type friends to support Mitt. He's never surged in the national polls, and despite spending vast sums of money, people just don't like the guy. I think I know why; it's because he's too slick. As a lawyer, this never really bothered me, but it appears to bother tons of people. (Not to mention the vast hoards of evangelicals who simply won't vote for a Mormon, and will make up any reason to justify that end result).

So, in the end, maybe the primary process has worked well, and we avoided picking a marginally better (Mitt used to be liberal after all) but less electable candidate. We did avoid picking a pro-choice candidate. Sometimes I think we forgot that Giuliani would be far worse for the pro-life cause than McCain, even on McCain's worst day. Beggars can't be choosers. Griping about McCain at this point is simply begging.

As for Huckabee, I think he strongly evidences how Evangelicals are important to the GOP. Everyone but John McCain got that message. Huckabee was not strong enough, in the end, to capitalize on his Iowa victory. He changed too many positions and said too many stupid things. I really tried to love Huckabee, and still think he's a more natural, brilliant speaker than anyone else in the field. But, you just can't change positions, as he has, and fail to raise money, as he has, and be viable. Huckabee as Veep, or maybe a future GOP nominee is exciting to me. He's still really young.

So, I expect McCain to win, to pick someone other than Mitt or Huckabee as Veep (someone like Sarah Palin, the Gov. of Alaska), and for all of us Christian conservatives to fight hard for McCain. I even hope, cleared away from the emotion of the primary process, Dobson will support voting for McCain. If you really care about Roe and protecting the unborn, how could you not support McCain in the general?

That's politics; you never get what you really want. Prudence dictates that we take incremental steps.

It's time to start loving the bomb.

Happy Iowa Caucus Day!!! (The Political Musings of Mr. Miller)

Today marks the kickoff of the most unsettled Presidential year of our lifetimes. As a political junkie, I've been following all of the twists and turns of the campaign with obsessive detail. In this post, I offer a summarization of a year's worth of my political observations and a couple of prognostications for the race.

Let us start with a quick look at the Democrats:

Edwards has lived in Iowa since the end of the 2004 campaign and has based his whole campaign on the premise that a win there can springboard him to national success. He's in striking distance in the Hawkeye State, but I don't think he'll pull off the upset. And even if he wins in Iowa, I don't think the rest of the country's Democrats really want to nominate a White Male when they have, as Mark Steyn pointed out, "a woman, a black, an Hispanic . . . and they all think exactly the same. They remind me of The Johnny Mathis Christmas Album, which Columbia used to re-release every year in a different sleeve: same old songs, new cover. When your ideas are identical, there's not a lot to argue about except biography."

Hillary is running as a quasi-incumbent. Her name identification and her perceived campaign machine have kept her at the top of the national polls all year long. But her support is somewhat soft. If she loses Iowa or New Hampshire, her national lead will probable evaporate and the Democratic race will be tight. She also struggles among liberals who don't think they are Democrats, e.g., if you watch The Daily Show for your news and think you are "balanced," you don't like Clinton.

Instead, all of those Jon-Stewart-heads will vote for Obama. He is nothing but a traditional liberal, but my friends who love him think that he "transcends the partisan divide." Whatever. In any event, he will likely gain the lion's share of the anti-Hillary vote. If he wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire, he'll be a real force.

MY PREDICTION: I predict that Hillary and Obama will engage in a bloody fight for the next two months. And even then it might not be settled. The Democratic delegate selection process provides for proportional delegate selection. Meaning, if Obama wins 40% of the vote in a state, he gets about 40% of the delegates. I think this will mean that neither of them can clinch the nomination early. And, with both of them boasting huge war chests, this thing will be a knock-down, drag-out fight!

In the general election, Obama would be a little tougher to beat than Hillary. Her negatives are stratospheric while Obama coos tenderly about "uniting the country." But Obama's inexperience and youth would be a liability as well. None of the major Republicans should despair at their general election chances.

Now, onto those Republicans:

No presidential primary in either party has looked remotely like the 2008 GOP race. There is no frontrunner. Rudy, the guy who is still the odds-on favorite according to betting websites, is polling below Ron Paul in Iowa and has basically conceded he will not win a single primary before Florida on January 29th. And Fred Thompson, while sitting in fifth place nationally, is just five or six points out from first place. Crazy!

My first principle in this race is Anybody But Giuliani (ABG). Rudy's unabashed pro-choice and pro-gay stances are indistinguishable from those of the Democratic candidates. He'd be a fine nominee for that party, just not mine. Despite his promises to nominate "strict constructionist" judges, Rudy winning the White House would end the period of the GOP as the pro-life party. In all future elections, Big Business Republicans would point to Rudy and say we need to nominate a social "moderate" in order to win. The pro-life cause would be set back for decades.

Because of the imperative of ABG, I've been casting about for a candidate strong enough to prevent his nomination. But thankfully for the good guys, Rudy has shown clear signs of slipping over the last six weeks. His path to the nomination is premised on winning big-state primaries like Florida, New York, New Jersey, and California. The first of those states to vote is Florida on January 29. South Florida has a huge number of former New Yorkers who harbor affection for their former mayor, but the northern part of the state is conservative like the rest of the South. Rudy will get about 30% of the vote there, but I think that one of the other candidates will be able to unite the conservative majority in the party to Stop Rudy in FL. If that happens, his victories on February 5th in Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York will be hollow. While he will likely hold the most delegates of any candidate on the morning of February 6th, if he lost in Florida, he probably won't win the nomination.

But which of the other four major candidates should we support? That is a really good question. Let's consider each in turn.

1) First, there is John McCain. He plans on winning New Hampshire a week from today and having that rocket him to the head of the GOP field. McCain was the frontrunner a year ago, but is now the plucky underdog. The mainstream media has basically willed into being his rally in New Hampshire, reporting it two weeks before it materialized in the polling. They have not forgotten how they almost handed him the 2000 GOP nomination and are giving it another try this year. McCain is a very viable general election candidate because a lot of independents think he "transcends the partisan divide." He's done this by thumbing his nose at the conservative movement's standard bearers. This five-year-old article in the liberal New Republic thought McCain would make a fine nominee for the Democrats in 2004. John Kerry asked him to be his running mate! But for all of those heresies, I'd take him over Rudy in a heartbeat.

2) Then we have Fred Thompson. He's a bit of an enigma. While in the Senate, Thompson worked closely with McCain on Campaign Finance "Reform," but other than that built a solid conservative record. He's played YouTube clips of Romney's former pro-choice positions, yet his claims of historical pro-life purity fall flat. His campaign has been hardest hit by the rise of another Southerner, Huckabee. Unless Huck crashes and burns, Fred's campaign is Dead on Arrival. Indeed, a story released today says that Fred will drop out unless he surprises (finishes ahead of Huck) in Iowa.

3) As some of you may know, I've been a supporter of Mitt Romney for some time. Mitt clearly has campaigned on bad social positions in the past, but I think his conversion to conservative views, while "convenient" is real. He's not going to take office and suddenly revert to pro-choice or pro-gay-agenda positions. That's why both the Republican Majority for Choice and the Log Cabin Republicans have run ads intended to undercut his candidacy. They know that he's no friend of theirs anymore.

But for many Evangelicals, whether they acknowledge it or not, the question of Mitt's Mormonism has been more poignant. I don't think believers should rule out supporting him over this issue. A Mormon President would not lead to mass conversions to the Mormon faith. Americans already are aware of Mormonism and have decided not to convert. But in the political arena, why shouldn't Evangelicals work with Mormons? The vast majority of Mormons hold political views largely indistinguishable from my own. This agreement on pro-family policies (including both social and fiscal conservatism) is natural because Mormons share a pro-family ethic in their personal lives. I've always taken it as a complement when someone thought my parents must be Mormons because they had five kids. (See the homeschooler-friendly station wagon pictured below!)

Ever since the founding of the pro-life movement, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have worked hand-in-hand as cobelligerents. I disagree with Catholic theology on many, many points and actually believe that in the Roman Church are not regenerated. Yet our political cooperation is a good thing for society. Political cooperation with Mormons should be endorsed, even welcomed, on the same principle.


Once Mitt's past liberal views and Mormonism are set aside, a very attractive candidate emerges. He has been faithful to one wife and has raised five successful sons. He has executive experience in business, in the Olympics, and as governor. He holds conservative positions on all of the major issues. He is strong in all of the early voting states and has a vast personal fortune that he is willing to spend in this campaign. He has been endorsed by Wayne Grudem and National Review.

4) Yet, I don't list Mitt last, because he's the candidate I support with my head. Huckabee has won a lot of my heart. Huck does not hold all of the conservative views that Mitt does, but he is a candidate loved by Josh Harris, Josh Harris's little brothers ( who told Chuck Norris), Justin Taylor, Michael Farris, and my groomsman David Talcott. I love that list of people! Those are my people! How can I dislike the guy that they all find so inspiring?

In the last six weeks, Huckabee has surged to the top of the Republican field. This surge has dismayed the Conservative Establishment. As compiled in a long list here, a TON of good people (Rush, National Review, etc.) are anti-Huck. I think there are three main reasons for this animosity. First, Huckabee's come-from-nowhere surge has proved wrong pundits who long ago limited the top tier to Rudy, Mitt, Fred, and McCain. Nobody likes looking bad. Secondly, there are Huck's conservative heresies: complaining that some CEO's make too much, raising taxes while Governor of Arkansas, and calling Bush's foreign policy an "arrogant bunker mentality." Huck does seem too willing to use populist rhetoric on the economy. But the final and most distressing reason that the conservative intelligentsia has turned on Huck is that he is an Evangelical who doesn't believe in Evolution. Erick at Redstate captured this trend perfectly in this must read post. These non-believing Conservatives are freaked out that Nominee Huckabee would embarrass them at their cocktail parties.

So I love Huck for his friends and I dislike the motivations of some of his enemies. The conservative intelligentsia and the liberal press think that Huck would be destroyed as a Christian extremist in the general election, but I think he could engineer a repeat of the 2000 and 2004 Red/Blue 50/50 elections that gave us Republican White Houses. He's not a sure loser. He's a political genius, who while untested, would be a tremendous nominee.

So, if I were in Iowa, I don't know which way I'd go. But by February 5th, the race should have crystallized with either Mitt, Huck, or McCain being the obvious Stop Rudy choice.

MY PREDICTION : Mitt Romney wins the nomination by the skin of his teeth and nominates Huckabee as his Veep to strengthen his Southern and Evangelical support.

Thanks for reading. The Burrow wishes you a Happy Election Year!

Christ of cities and suburbs

Urban church planting is hip right now. Church planters may be taking their cues from the culture. Renewing city centers to attract young, single professionals as the key to economic growth has been the focus of developers and city councils across the nation for a while. As a member of their target demographic, not surprisingly urban love hit me during college. I dreamed of moving to Boston, New York, or DC and living in an old warehouse converted to studio apartments with exposed brick walls and in close proximity to a wine bar, live jazz, and the performing arts center.

These "cool cities" projects have failed to produce the promised financial returns, however, as noted by a WSJ opinion piece yesterday. They failed because the target demographic moves out as quickly as it moves in. Young, single professionals opt with far more frequency than the previous generation to marry and start families. When they do, they abandon the city for the surrounding suburbs. Moreover, it is these "married people with children [not singles who] tend to be both successful and motivated, precisely the people who make the economies go." Thus, affordable housing and short commutes, not loft apartments and nightclubs, are the key to cities creating burgeoning and stable economies.

Our experience in New York City squares with the statistics. The members of our church who live in the city are largely educated professionals who are single or newlywed. As families grow, they tend to leave the city entirely. Indeed, the joke is that professionals leave Manhattan for Brooklyn when they have their first baby, and then move out to Long Island or leave the area entirely when the second baby arrives.

It's not that people start hating the city. They just find it hard to raise a family in a one-bedroom walk-up apartment using public transportation. For the same monthly cost, you can buy a spacious four-bedroom home in Gilbert, Arizona, own two cars, and stock the fridge with twice as many groceries.

Because we believe that children are a blessing from the Lord and an essential element of marriage and because of the economic forces moving married couples with children to the suburbs, Mr. Miller and I have been puzzled by the emphasis on "missional" ministry to the city over the work of the allegedly vacuous churches of suburbia. It's encouraging to see new web resources like Mission to Suburbia (HT: Between Two Worlds) mostly because it means the pendulum might be swinging back to center.

Most troubling in the current urban trend are the ideas that living in an urban area makes one more sensitive to poverty or have more opportunities to evangelize. After living in NYC a total of six months, I've already become immune to the pleas of the countless beggars (as well as the urine scent in the subway and the grime on the streets.) As for evangelism, those opportunities abound just about anywhere; it's a matter of seizing them. My father and sister put me to shame in this regard. Dad, a supervisor for the utility company that provides power to most Arizona suburbs, seems to share the gospel with co-workers and business associates as naturally and frequently as he breaths. And my sister, a suburban housewife, shares the gospel with young mothers she meets through mommy groups and pregnancy classes.

The obvious truth is that people need Jesus whether they live in track homes or high rises. Pastors and church planters certainly face unique issues depending on location because of the different demographics, but the essential need of human beings remains constant.

The distinction for the Christian, then, is not, as the real estate slogan goes, "location, location, location!" but rather "faithful, faithful, faithful." Whether I live in a city or suburb (in God's providence, I've had opportunity to live in both), I am called to faithfully love the Lord by keeping his commands and love my neighbors by caring for them, most especially for their souls.

The art of campaign signs

Explained by the New York Times (tip from Cisco via Keith).

2007 Federalist Society NLC

Mr. Miller and I attended the annual Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention last week. The convention has special significance for us. Mr. Miller first spotted me talking to some mutual friends at this conference two years ago. He asked around for my name, but did not work up the nerve to talk to me until three months later!

We anticipate this convention each year because it is a haven for legal nerds. In other words, these are our people. The panels, debates, and guest speakers are always intellectually stimulating, and the line-up of speakers was especially high-quality given that the Federalist Society was celebrating its 25th anniversary. Long live judicial conservatism and strict constructionist judges!

Admittedly, however, my favorite point of the conference was attending the gala on Thursday night. Not only did I get to don an evening gown and dance with my husband, but we also heard from President Bush, Judge Bork, and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

With our friends, Lisa and Andrew

Our seats did not afford a view of the President so we watched him on the screen

With friend and mentor, Jeff Ventrella

Mr. Miller with two lovely Lewis women!

With my husband, my lover, my friend

Seeing black helicopters?

Conservative conspiracy theories are so not cool.

Call me lame, then. I find the following facts downright weird. (1) Laura Ingraham's new book topped the New York Time's Best Seller list last month. (2) Not a single major newspaper has reviewed it.

Wayne Grudem supports Mitt Romney

Grudem argues why Mitt Romeny is the presidential candidate for evangelical Christians.

"First, he is the best-qualified candidate, and second, he holds moral and political values consistent with those in the Bible."

But why support Mitt over other conservative candidates?

"Apart from Romney, I don’t think there is any other solidly conservative candidate who can beat Giuliani in the primaries. As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative. Among the “second-tier” candidates, there are some good men with solid positions, but they have not generated much support. With the early primary schedule nearly upon us it isn’t reasonable to hope that one of them will suddenly “take off.” There is not enough time now to build sufficient funding and a large enough support structure before January.

So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate. So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife. Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the “middle.” So then if we lose, we lose, and even if we win, we lose on the crucial moral issues of abortion and protection of marriage. Romney is a much better choice. But he needs evangelical support now if he is going to win."

See also Evangelicals for Mitt.

Skeptical of drinking from The Fountainhead

I'm researching Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead. I read the voluminous work back in college, and found it preachy and philosophically disturbing. Rand uses the story to explain objectivism, which holds a radically autonomous view of the human person and proclaims the virtue of selfishness. Since college, I've talked to countless people who have were profoundly influenced by the novel, including Christians. I've struggled to articulate to them the intellectual discord between objectivism and Christianity, because, to some extent, Rand's philosophy describes human nature as we find it and, thus, resonates with reality. But this essay contrasting George Bailey with Rand's hero, Howard Roark, does the job well.

Of Columbia and Mr. Ahmadinejad

While Mrs. Miller keeps our home and brings in some Mahalo bacon, I study law at Columbia University. That august institution recently created a good deal of controversy by inviting President Ahmadinejad to speak to students and faculty.

I found myself torn. On the one hand the invitation of a the leader of a country hostile to American interests seemed to be very unpatriotic, but on the other the practice of shouting down the exchange of ideas seems to be the province of lefties at Columbia.

But a couple days after the speech, my favorite political columnist, Mark Steyn, really crystallized the issue. For Columbia's liberals, the invitation of Ahmadinejad is merely a method for them to declare their self-righteousness. Go read the column, not least for the distinction between "humanitarian needs" and "human needs," and for the classic quip, "But enough about Iran, let's talk about me!" That Mark Steyn!

Images inspired by Orwell

George Orwell is my next project. Fans of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm will enjoy these modern photos contemplating his classic novels.

Evangelicalism Divided and other books

Mr. Miller here. Wanted to give you all a quick update on what the Missus and I have been reading.

Evangelicals Divided, Iain Murray
I picked this up at The Church Formerly Known as Abundant Life just over a month ago. Even though it's been out for quite a few years, just today Justin Taylor linked to a hip-cool annotation of all the major reviews of it. I'm gonna chalk that one up as some Holy Spirit providence. The story Murray tells has many black hats (J.I. Packer, John Stott, Billy Graham all come out pretty poorly) and a nearly lone hero (Martyn Lloyd-Jones!!!).

Beyond Culture Wars, Michael Horton
Just this weekend, Mrs. Miller and I made our maiden voyage to The Strand. While it doesn't measure up to Powell's, there were a lot of books. We purchased this book so we could better respond to the bathing-practices-conscious Toby who studied under Horton. Look for more updates on this score!

--Signing off--

The Philadelphia Society

Mrs. Miller and I went to the national meeting of the Philadelphia Society (the grown up version of ISI) last week.

The theme of the conference was The Future of Conservatism, but an unofficial theme emerged: ripping on Evangelicals. Adrian Wooldridge (who with John Micklethwaite wrote The Right Nation, summed up here, which understood Conservatism very well, but warned of the GOP becoming too “Southern”), pinned the blame for all the GOP’s troubles squarely on the backs of religious conservatives. Ryan Sager, called for a “new fusionism” which would mean libertarians getting their policy preferences promoted and religious conservative shutting up.

There was an interesting debate over Evolution and its usefulness for conservatives. Larry Arnhart and John West starred on a panel similar to the one at AEI the next week (sans Gilder and Derb).

Saw D.G. Hart speak on the future of Evangelical (EV) politics. He believes that the triumvurate of Wallis-Sider-Warren are replacing Dobson-Falwell-Robertson as the voice of Evangelicals.

This is convenient for Hart because he triangulates himself away from the Evangelical label. Speaking to Evangelicals from the outside (in a book review in Touchstone Magazine), he says EVs should stop “bludgeoning” non-believers with proof texts. He asks if Evs are “people of the book because they have little sense of the legitimate authority that resides outside the divinely sanctioned truths of Scripture.” His calls on EVs to stop being “political junkies” and to recognize with Augustinian “two cities,” Lutheran “two kingdoms,” or Reformed “spirituality of the church” that they should recognize:

that religion and politics operate in two different spheres of human existence, the former eternal, the latter temporal, and so have two different norms, with Scripture governing the spiritual (at least for Protestants) and general revelation guiding the political.

In saying the Bible doesn’t speak to the temporal sphere, he is directly contravening the fundamental tenant of my political worldview.

Hart, who was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home by parents who attended Bob Jones University, is intellectually embarrassed by Evangelicals and defines himself in his opposition to them. In his scholarship, he divides American Protestantism into three camps: the liberal mainline, the Evangelicals, and the confessing Churches (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, anti-Episcopal Anglicans, Orthodox Presbyterians, and others) of which he falls in the last group.

On one hand, I think this three group classification is helpful–”higher” churches who adhere to the fundamentals of the faith have always worn the title “Evangelical” slightly awkwardly–but I worry about the apparent motives at work. Hart says that confessing Churches (CCs) are already bifurcating their realities like he wishes EVs would do. Basically, this is the conceit of academics: worship at a CC church, play the intellectual game and don’t worry about making your worldview holistic by splitting the world into the temporal and the eternal. I recognize that this strategy will earn you more respect in the academy, but even if aren’t you being “ashamed of the Gospel,” you're being ashamed of many of its adherents.

Even More Supreme Court Review!!!

Lest the impression be left that Mrs. Miller is more attuned to Today's SCOTUS Action, I also want to weigh in.

Kennedy thinks he still likes Casey... but... he wants everyone to know that it is a "moderate" decision. Of course it wasn't actually very moderate, as Ginsburg strenuously points out.

Most interesting today is the silence from Roberts and Alito. My guess (endorsed by Mrs. Miller and her mother) says that they kept their powder dry because they want to overturn Roe-Casey. They refused to be quotable today to prevent the next SCOTUS nomination fight from being even more explicitly about overturning Roe. I think they will keep mum until Kennedy can't write badly for a majority anymore. Then they'll take a case and kill Roe 6-3 with Roberts writing for the majority.

/rampant speculation

High Court Upholds Federal Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion!

Court divides 5-4. Justice Kennedy writes for the majority. You can read the opinion here.

The Majority upholds the law against attacks that the law is facially vague and poses an undue burden on a woman's "right to choose" because it is overbroad and does not contains an exception for the health of the women. The Majority says the law is neither vague nor overbroad but rather narrowly targets intact D&Es (i.e., late term partial birth abortions). The state's interest in promoting the dignity of life together with the availability of other late-term abortion procedures removes the need for a health exception.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurs and writes to make sure everyone knows he thinks the Court's abortion jurisprudence is unconstitutional.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, dissents. She harps on the law's lack of a health exception.

My take: the decision is a small, but important victory for the unborn, pro-life advocates, and judicial conservatives. The most important part of the decision is the blow at Casey's requirement of a health exception in abortion bans. I also like Kennedy's frequent deference to legislative findings and judgements.

Quotes from the Majority Opinion:

• "The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." 27
• "Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." 28-29 (citations omitted)
• "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community." 33
• "The Court has in the past confirmed the validity of [Congress] drawing boundaries to prevent certain practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned." 28
• "The Court.s precedents instruct that the Act can survive this facial attack [that some medical evidence shows that an intact D&E is safer than a regular D&E (baby is dismembered inside the women)]. The Court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty." 33