Harriet Miers, The Supreme Court, and the Right to Die

President Bush named Harriet Miers as his nominee for the Supreme Court this week. I wish I could tell you a lot about her, but I can't. There are rumors that she is an evangelical Christian. However, I don't know for certain that she is. I do know that she supported Al Gore for President in 1988. I know that she at one time was a Democrat, and now she is a Republican. The New York Times tells us that it was a conversion to Evangelical Christianity that brought about the change in her political views. Yet, this is nothing more than speculation. Simply put, President Bush named a safe candidate with no paper trail. She will pass, because no one knows anything about her. I think this is a shame.

I will not use this post to tell you everything I think about this choice. If you would like to know what I think, read my August 1st, 2005 post. My opinion of this nominee is no different than my opinion of President Bush's first nominee. I think he made a choice out of weakness and not strength.

If Harriet Miers is confirmed, she will rule on one of the most controversial topics in American History. The state of Oregon passed a law, in 1997, allowing doctors the right to assist a terminally ill patient in suicide. This question is an interesting one for most Conservative Christians. The Bible does not allow for mercy killings. Euthanasia is not ethical. Suffering is a part of life. All life is sacred, and to end a life prematurely is wrong.

Now here is the problem. Most conservatives believe in State rights. If state rights are upheld, then Oregon voters can stand by their law. As a matter of fact, it is the concept of State rights that may turn back the onslaught of abortion. What most conservatives want is the court to allow states to decide their own abortion laws. So if the court rules that the federal government trumps state rights, evangelicals win a battle against euthanasia. However, they will then lose a battle against abortion. This is truly a dilemma.

Many evangelicals would argue that if it is morally wrong it shouldn't be law. This would be great if we were a theocracy. However, we are not. There are many things that are morally wrong that are legal to do. Evangelical Christians once outlawed the sale of alcohol by amending the Constitution. This didn't work out to well. The nation changed the Constitution back a few years later.

So should we hope for consistency from the court, or should we hope for morality from the courts. I personally would like consistent morality. However, this probably will never happen. It is also dangerous. For the court is liquid, and can change political opinion with each new justice. When I look at the political structure, I must come down on the side of state rights. This means that if people vote for it, it becomes the law of the land. The only way the federal government could override the law is by passing new amendments to the Constitution. This means that there are huge moral risk. It means that people may vote and make laws that our evil. However, that is the risk of living in a free society. It then becomes the job of the evangelical Christian to teach against evil, and we must hope that good will prevail.