Townhall.com :: Columns :: President Bush, paradigm-changer by Marvin Olasky: " Heart: In so many ways, this appointment is classic Bush. Nearly six years ago, when asked in an early debate among Republican presidential candidates to name his favorite philosopher, W. famously said, 'Christ, because he changed my heart.' The pooh-poohing of his answer then (favorite philosopher -- the question was about mind, not heart) anticipated the current debate among conservatives: suffering servant? Why not intellectual leader?

It's George W. Bush's analysis that 'heart' is crucial, since a good mind by itself also does not a great justice make. We may end up having been bamboozled by this nominee, in which case the Republican Party will pay a heavy price. But give Bush credit for going beyond the assumption that the person who would be the best constitutional law professor makes the best nominee. He has not only nominated a justice, but implicitly called for a paradigm shift in conservative thinking. "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Heart 

"Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issue of life," said Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, except Jesus who was Solomon's wisdom. Yes, and that means the issues before the Supreme Court, too. The failure of the Supreme Court over the past one hundred years as not been a failure of intellect or judicial experience, but a failure of heart. A person with a bad heart and a great brain produces clever arguments for bad causes [Johnny Cochrain and O. J. Simpson come to mind]. Brilliant minds and judicial legerdemain that gave us Roe vs. Wade [an ephemerial finding of the right of privacy to justify the murder of infants--THAT was a triumph of brains and judicial experience over heart].

Justice Earl Warren, in the most famous equity decision in the history of the Court, skewered both brains and judicial experience in the most famous exchange in this history of the debate over whether or not blacks would be treated with equality in schools. After hearing brains and judicial experience argue for segregated schools and states right, he asked the question, "Yes, but is it fair?" Score: Heart 1; brains 0. Someone needs to ask a similar questions to the pro-abortionists and pro-gay marriage lobby: : "Yes, but is it moral?" Liberals dasn't ask the question, and conservatives are too chicken. Moral are private, you know, like in, "I personally am against abortion, but believe in a woman's right to choose. Let's keep morals out of the public debate. the right to choose, even if it means murder, is above morality, requiring brains and judicial experience to understand."

From what I have heard of Harriet Miers, she might just be the tough cookie to ask the question. Communism had many very bright people and Marxist judges in America and abroad had a wealth of judicial experience. But what good is all that with a rotten heart? There are very bright conservatives with rotten hearts, for the heart is not cleansed by political or judicial philosophy. Liberalism does not even want to ask the question, "What is a good heart?" or "What is a good person?" Liberalism is so morally and spiritually bankrupt that it wouldn't know a good heart if it stumbled over one in the brightness of noon sunlight.

Only God knows the heart and this writer certainly doesn't know whether or not Harriet Miers has a good one. But it might be a risk worth taking. As Paschal said, "The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of." It is time for the Supreme Court to connect with the conscience of America. There is no question where the conscience of America is with respect to abortion and gay marriage.