Posted on 01/08/2006 1:34:00 PM PST by SJackson
Alito good for Jews
By: JEFFREY N. WASSERSTEIN JTA
It’s axiomatic that Jews tend to view all news through the lens of “but is it good for the Jews?” It’s therefore no surprise that this filter now is being brought to bear on my former boss and mentor, Judge Samuel Alito Jr., who has been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Based on my experience working closely with Judge Alito, I can answer unequivocally that yes, Judge Alito will be good for the Jews n and, by extension, for all Americans.
I’m a pro-choice, registered Democrat who supports progressive candidates. I’m also an observant Jew active in my community. Notwithstanding numerous areas of commonality I have with the liberal groups opposing Judge Alito’s nomination, I wholeheartedly disagree with their position on the nomination.
Regardless of Judge Alito’s personal beliefs or the positions that he advocated while a litigator with the Justice Department during the Reagan era, he takes great pains to set aside his personal opinions when judging. He did such a good job that I did not know what his personal beliefs were when I clerked for him.
Judge Alito does not come to cases with preconceived notions. One time, while working on a criminal appeal, I made the mistake of commenting that the case should be fairly easy to decide in favor of the government, in light of the extremely slipshod brief submitted by defense counsel.
Even though he was a former federal prosecutor with considerable experience with criminal cases, Judge Alito rebuked me for my attitude. He made it known that we were to carefully read all briefs and the appellate record and conduct any additional research needed to ensure that all parties received fair hearings before the court of appeals. Like Judge Alito, we were expected to keep an open mind and not prejudge any case.
In areas of religious freedom, Judge Alito has considerably more sensitivity to members of minority religions than some of the conservative justices currently serving on the Supreme Court.
The current Supreme Court standard for determining religious discrimination cases under the First Amendment’s “Free Exercise” clause is Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that a law that does not target religion does not violate the First Amendment. In other words, if the statute is not targeting a religious practice, it’s constitutional even if it has the effect of banning that practice.
By way of contrast, Judge Alito has written numerous opinions protecting the right of minority religious groups to be free from religious discrimination. One example is a case involving Muslim police officers in Newark, N.J. Judge Alito held that the city violated police officers’ Free Exercise rights by requiring them to shave their beards in violation of their Sunni Muslim religious beliefs.
In another case, Judge Alito wrote an opinion stating that a university could not discriminate against a Shabbat-observant professor, since “criticism of an employee’s effort to reconcile his or her schedule with the observance of Jewish holidays delivers the message that the religious observer is not welcome at the place of employment.”
In another case involving a member of a Native American religion, Judge Alito wrote that a civic ordinance may not “target religiously motivated conduct either on its face or as applied in practice.’’
As someone who believes that the Jewish community is best served by judges who limit their roles to deciding specific cases and not enacting their personal agendas, I’m convinced that Judge Alito is by far the best person for this position. Is he good for the Jews? Absolutely.
Jeffrey Wasserstein was a law clerk for Judge Alito from 1997-98. He currently is a principal in the law firm of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C., in Washington, D.C.
Alito bad forJews
By: PHYLLIS SNYDER JTA
“But is it good for the Jews?” That was the question many of our grandparents voiced n a question we may have dismissed, even with affection, as a narrow or parochial expression.
Today, we know that what’s “good for the Jews” extends beyond ourselves: It encompasses a concern for the well-being of society as a whole and the fate of our constitutional freedoms. We Jews are thriving, largely thanks to the protections afforded to us as a minority religion.
For the National Council of Jewish Women, this has led us to take sides in the national debate on the direction of our courts. And it has led us to oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.
When a Supreme Court nominee decides the First Amendment permits the majority religion to impose its beliefs and symbols on the rest of us in the public square n it’s not good for Jews.
When he reveals his lifelong ambition to overturn the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, preventing a woman from following her conscience and religious beliefs when exercising her legal right to choose abortion n it’s not good for Jews.
And, when he consistently rules against victims of employment discrimination, narrowing civil rights protections n that too isn’t good for Jews.
Judge Alito has a record of conservatism that is far to the right of our national consensus. He’s the candidate President Bush promised us when he said in 2000 that he would appoint justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Clarifying his views on the Supreme Court’s past decisions regarding religion, in November 2005 he told Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), these rulings “were incoherent in this area of the law in a way that gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious expression.”
Alito’s judicial record supports this statement. He disagreed with the majority of the Third Circuit when it decided that students could not include a prayer in their graduation programs.
He also argued that public-school teachers could be forced to distribute materials of the Child Evangelism Project for their weekly after-school meetings. In contrast, the Supreme Court concluded that religious meetings may be held on school grounds only “where no school officials actively participate.”
As for a woman’s right to choose an abortion, Judge Alito’s hostility to the right to choose has been unwavering.
While working in the Solicitor General’s office, Alito wrote a 17-page memo on using Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as an “opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.”
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he wanted to uphold a requirement that a woman notify her spouse before obtaining an abortion, a proposition Justice O’Connor and the majority rejected, declaring “A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.”
His strategy of pressing for increasing restrictions on Roe clearly became the ongoing strategy of the anti-choice movement n a movement that would restrict religious freedom by imposing one religion’s view on all women.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism recently repeated its support for legislation “maintaining the legality and accessibility of abortion so that in those cases where our religious authorities determine that an abortion is warranted halachically, obtaining that abortion will not be hindered by our civil law.” It’s clear that as a Supreme Court judge, Alito would threaten this principle.
The National Council of Jewish Women urges all Jews and Jewish organizations to join with us in the fight to defeat Alito’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.
Phyllis Snyder is president of the National Council of Jewish Women.
---------------------------
What an obnoxious question to ask in the first place.
It should not be asked except by people who are intellectually honest enough to permit me to ask:
"Is Alito good for WASPs?" There are few such people in today's hyper-PC environment.
While the author of the "Yes" column seems reasonable and sincere, he misses the point. The vast majority of people who think in terms of "is it good for the Jews" aren't interested in religious freedom. They're interested in forcing everyone else to make them feel comfortable -- no public celebration of Christmas, no support for private or parochial schools, no abstinence education, no Pat Robertson or any other social conservative preaching on TV, etc., etc., etc. So unfortunately, the column will have no impact on its intended audience.
The author would do better to urge people to think in terms of the overall good of society. America has been the promised land for Jews, and many of them need to think much more deeply than they have about what made it so,
and, therefore, what is in their long-term interest.
It sound like Ms. Snyder's tag line could be even shorter:
"Abortion bytch" would suffice.
This is a completely hypocritical and dishonest position. Rabbis of the Conservative movement are not halachic authorities. No woman goes to them seeking permission to get an abortion.
The Conservative rabbis are asking that the government not hinder them in exerting a religious authority that they do not in fact have.
Well said.
It’s axiomatic that Jews tend to view all news through the lens of “but is it good for the Jews?”
Is it any wonder then, that many Americans feel that their first loyalty is to other Jews, and by inference to Israel? I think our Jewish friends should be more aware of what side their bread is buttered on, and consider first what's good for America.
I don't know but I would guess he is safe for the Christian tolerating Jew and unsafe for the Christian hating Jew. But that's just me.
Abe Foxman...it's looking unsafe just as you predicted.
It's not a religious thing, they're entering the political sphere. Even the Reform movement acknowles Halacha in their opinions on issues like abortion or homosexuality, then floats off into it's a modern world, and we know things the sages didn't, and who are we to judge.
They are correct that it's a legislative issue. I doubt they intended that condemnation of Rowe v Wade.
And while they may not grant "permission", women do consult Rabbis on personal issues such as abortion. IMO a Rabbi, irrespective of his political views, who doesn't explain the Halachic position on abortion in the context of that consultation isn't doing his job.
Why bother.
Phyllis Snyder is president of the National Council of Jewish Women.
National Council of Extremely Liberal JINO Women is a 501(c)(3) organization, but spend a huge amount of time and energy attempting to influence legislation and election of "pro-choice" candidates.
They need a visit from the IRS.
FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel/Russian Jewry ping list.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
So, let me see. If you are a member of a religion that practices human sacrifice, do you really think that Judge Alito would declare all murder laws unconstitutional in order to show "sensitivity" to your religion?
That is true but what the Conservative rabbis are saying is that, if the government passes laws outlawing abortion, it would interfere with their religious authority to grant abortion under certain circumstances.
That would be a legitimate position if
1) They actually had that authority
2) Jewish women actually followed it.
Fully agree. The question is not only obnoxious, but stupid as well. The answer to it is: good for some, not so good for others. Good for those who would be satisfied with a constructionist Justice; not good for those looking for a mouthpiece of theirs on the Supreme Court.
Not that explaining it to you might make any difference but maybe to others who never heard the expression.
"Is it good for the Jews?" is a cliche based on history.
For 2000 years in Europe and under Islam, the Jewish experience depended on a whim.
One King, or Pope or Government had a certain positive opinion of Jews, another King, Pope, Government was a danger to Jews.
Any news might trigger a new whim.
Therefore was any Jews good or bad for the Jews?
At the News, could they relax or should they run for their lives.
Phyllis Snyder is an intolerant liberal secularist. I'm sure, however, that she is also, at least nominally, a Jew.
Speaking as a Jewish male, all I care about is Alito being bad for whiny lefties of all religions, races, and creeds.
I think I speak for many of my fellow Jews when I thank you for the warning.
Now we Jews will need to decide if your warning is "good for the Jews"?
It's the wrong reason, but I agree. That aspect is a schadenfreude thing.
Unfortunately, it's not just Jews who do this. More and more, people are jumping on the bandwagon of identity politics. It would be a good thing if people would thing, "would this be good for America" first. By extension, it would be good for them.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.