Since the enactment of our 2002 policy, the Reform Movement has opposed only 7 of the most controversial of President Bush’s nearly 250 judicial nominees.
Since the enactment of our 2002 policy, the Reform Movement has opposed only 7 judicial nominees.
On November 20, 2005, at the Union for Reform Judaism‘s Biennial convention in Houston, TX delegates voted overwhelmingly to oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Biennial is the Reform Movement’s largest and most democratic decision making body. Our opposition resulted from our concern that Judge Alito would shift the court’s ideological balance on issues including: reproductive rights, the separation of church and state, environmental protection, civil rights, worker rights, and civil liberties. Our Movement worked in coalition with hundreds of local and national organizations in opposition to this nomination. Despite these efforts, on January 31, 2006, Samuel Alito Jr. was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the 110th Associate Justice to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58-42.
William Pryor (Eleventh Circuit) raised concerns related to reproductive rights; voting rights; civil rights; equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans; and the separation of church and state.
Charles Pickering (Fifth Circuit) raised concerns related to reproductive rights; the separation of church and state; and exhibited questionable ethics during his tenure as a lower court judge.
Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit) raised concerns related to environmental protection; civil rights; civil liberties; and workers’ rights.
Priscilla Owen (Fifth Circuit) raised concerns related to reproductive rights; workers’ rights; environmental protection; and exhibited questionable ethics during her tenure as a lower court judge.
Claude Allen (Fourth Circuit) raised concerns related to reproductive rights; equal access to public services; civil rights; and the separation of church and state.
Richard Honaker (District Court of Wyoming) raised concerns related to the separation between church and state; reproductive rights; and his respect for the influence and impact of the District Court.
Each of these nominees was considered far outside of the judicial mainstream and their professional histories illustrated philosophies that threatened the fundamental rights which our Movement works to uphold.