Paul Wilczynski's Observations

UUA position on Judge John Roberts

With President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts, the official process of selecting a new Supreme Court Justice is underway. What's the position of the UUA [Unitarian Universalist Association]? What role should Unitarian Universalists and other like-minded people of faith and goodwill play?

While the Association has a long history of taking positions on public policy issues, we -- like many other religious groups -- have traditionally not taken stands on nominations. UUA policy on this matter changed significantly in June 2004, when the General Assembly adopted a Statement of Conscience on Civil Liberties which called us "as individuals, as congregations, and as an association of congregations" to, among other things, "oppose nominees to the federal appeals courts or the Supreme Court whose records demonstrate insensitivity to the protection of civil liberties."

Since that time, the Association has joined the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, a broad effort of more than 100 civil rights, civil liberties, environmental, labor, and religious organizations (see www.saveourcourts.org). We have formally opposed three nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, Pricilla Owen, and William Pryor -- all who had clear records of more than just insensitivity to the protection of civil liberties -- and have raised serious concerns about others.

We have also strongly opposed the so-called nuclear option, an end-run around Senate rules that would have eliminated the filibuster, thus allowing nominations to go through with only a bare majority. In April, UUA President William Sinkford joined other religious leaders in expressing deep concern at the attacks on religious liberty coming from Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist and the Family Research Council. Senator Frist had agreed to take a leading role in the Family Research Council's "Justice Sunday" event, which defines a commitment to preserving the Senate fiibuster as an attack "against people of faith."

Upon the retirement of Justice O'Connor, the UUA and 28 other religious groups sent a letter to President Bush and the Senate saying that "the temperament, qualifications and judicial philosophy of any Supreme Court nominee should be thoroughly and carefully examined by the Senate," and calling for a confirmation process "free of the divisive and dangerous practice of using Senators' and nominees' faiths as a wedge."

So now that a nominee has been proposed, what is the position of the UUA? The short answer is that we have serious concerns about Robert's nomination, but are not yet opposing it. Here's why:

John Roberts has only two years' experience as a judge and a sparse public record, so it's difficult to determine his judicial philosophy. However, what little we do know is troubling. Most significantly, he has written that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and, as a lawyer, he worked to allow the government to gag some doctors from discussing reproductive health options with their patients. He has supported school prayer and suggested throwing out the test used to evaluate application of the Establishment clause.

As troubling as these positions are, we believe that more time and research are needed to distinguish between his personal views and his statements on behalf of his clients, and then how his views are likely to be reflected in his decisions. A key factor in our decision-making will be the actions of trusted partners in the civil liberties arena, such as the American Civil Liberties Union. We are cognizant that several of our partners in the reproductive health arena have already announced their opposition, including the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

During this process of discernment, however, we are clear on several matters.

First, we will insist on a full and public discussion of Judge Robert's philosophy and qualifications, including calling for the release of important documents. The relative lack of information means that the hearings are particularly important in establishing a record concerning his personal views on the law and its interpretation.

Second, in addition to asking questions and raising concerns about the nominee, we will use the confirmation process as an opportunity to talk about our vision for both constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary. The extreme right has demonized the last 40-50 years of jurisprudence as liberal judicial activism. We need to highlight the fact that this period contained unprecedented steps forward for most Americans, and that we are better of because of it. The public needs to know exactly what's at stake.

Third, we will closely monitor the role of religion in the confirmation process, and oppose the use of religion as a political tool. We will not let any group claim that people of faith have a singular perspective, nor will we be "faith-baited" by those who use religion to stymie legitimate inquiry into a nominee's judicial philosophy. We will speak truth about the extreme right's dangerous claim that their role in the 2004 elections entitles them to a nominee who shares their narrow, restrictive views of faith and family. We will articulate our own vision for the role of religion in politics, grounded in a commitment to justice for all people.

I encourage Unitarian Universalists to work with other people of faith and good will in the weeks and months ahead. Talk about your personal views. Share your larger visions. Consider what's at stake. Discuss the nominee. Take action as your conscience dictates. If so moved, write letters to the editor and to your Senators.

In Faith,

Rob Keithan

Director, Washington Office for Advocacy
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 12:18 PM