FP'ed at Koleinu Echad
Dear Reb Matthew,
What is the position of Street Prophets Jews on Judge Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court?
Sincerely,
Matthew Krell
Short answer: we're opposed.
Longer answer: First of all, I don't speak for all the Jews at Street Prophets. I want to make absolutely clear that I only speak for myself in this. However, trends in the audience suggest that as a rule, Street Prophets users are more likely to oppose Judge Alito's nomination; thus, SP Jews are also more likely to oppose.
That said, why oppose? I mean, elections have consequences, right? This is the price we pay for not getting it done a year ago. I'm forced to rely on the resolution adopted by the Union of Reform Judaism regarding the criteria for opposing a nominee. The Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, the lobbying wing of the URJ (insofar as a lobbying wing can be said to exist for a church), says the second step involves six criteria, any one of which is sufficient to oppose. They are:
A. The nominee lacks the competence, professional qualifications, or ethical standards to serve in the position to which he or she is nominated;
B. A nominee for a judicial position has demonstrated a pattern of disregard for generally accepted principles of jurisprudence or a nominee for an executive branch or independent agency appointment has a demonstrated record of opposition to the policies that he or she would be responsible to administer;
C. The nominee has a record of bigoted, racist or anti-Semitic activity;
D. The nominee has emerged as a major and influential ideologue on one or more issues of core concern to the Reform Movement and the appointment would likely contribute significantly to reshaping American jurisprudence or policy in a direction that would jeopardize those core values;
E. The nomination has engendered a national debate on one or more issues of core concern to the Reform Movement so that the outcome of the confirmation or nomination is likely to be perceived as a referendum on that issue and will have significant implications beyond the individual nomination;
F. The nominee's confirmation would shift the ideological or policy balance of a particular court or independent agency on matters of core concern to the Reform Movement.
The implications are obvious. By Standards E and F, and possibly by B and D, Judge Alito fails to meet the necessary qualifications for being supported by the Union. Let me point out that none of those standards are partisan or even ideological. The URJ truly has no "litmus test;" rather, they ask that judges not be unduly abrasive on the issues that matter to the Movement.
Ultimately, every SP member must decide in their own hearts whether to actively oppose or passively ponder Judge Alito's nomination. It is my ruling, based on the Biblical injunction to establish fair courts without rancor, that to support Judge Alito's nomination would not be in keeping with Judaism as it is practiced at Street Prophets - however, opposing him is not obligatory.