Reform Jewish Group Opposes Alito
More than 2,000 delegates of the Union of Reform Judaism met this weekend in Houston and passed a resolution opposing the nomination of Judge Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. The resolution is based on Judge Alito's record with respect to abortion, women's and civil rights, federal power and the separation of church and state. The group represents 900 synagogues with 1.5 million members. It is the only branch of Judaism that recognizes civil unions between same-sex couples and ordination of gays. From the text of the resolution :
• Judge Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court “would threaten protection of the most fundamental rights which our Movement supports including, but not limited to, reproductive freedom, the separation between church and state, protection of civil rights and civil liberties, and protection of the environment;”
• On choice, women’s rights, civil rights, and the scope of federal power particularly as it relates to civil rights and environmental protection, Judge Alito’s nomination “has engendered a national debate on one or more issues of core concern to the Reform Movement so that the outcome of the nomination is likely to be perceived as a referendum on that issue and will have significant implications beyond the individual nomination;”
• Based on his opinions (often dissents on our core issues and values) in which he often differed from the views of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who was so often the moderate “swing vote” on a closely divided Supreme Court), Judge Alito’s elevation “would shift the ideological balance of the Supreme Court on matters of core concern to the Reform Movement;” and
• Judge Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court “would likely contribute significantly to reshaping American jurisprudence in a direction that would jeopardize those core values.”
The group decided to make its announcement before the confirmation hearings because of Judge Alito's extensive record on these issues:
• As his record is so expansive and consistent, it is far less likely that any new information will be presented during the hearings process that would alter our position. In the past, the Union has acted on several nominations where a nominee’s record was well established and the timing of a board meeting preceded hearings—with the clear assumption that if the hearings substantively changed the view of the candidate the decision would be revisited. (In none of these cases did the hearings have that effect).
The Union will review the resolution after the hearings, but,
...if disclosures in the hearings do not reflect substantial changes, the Union will remain in opposition to his nomination.
| < Biden: Filibuster Possible | Wal-Mart Day at HuffPo > |
