Unitarian Universalist Association Opposes Alito Confirmation as Threat to Civil Liberties

1/24/06 UUA Calls for Action on Eve of Alito Supreme Court Vote 1/13/06 - Read extracts of Judge Alito's testimony during his confirmation hearing

The Supreme Court of the United States

(December 12, 2005 – Washington, DC) The Unitarian Universalist Association today announced its opposition to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The UUA's opposition is based on concerns over civil liberties, including religious liberty, the right to privacy, and due process.

In a memo to congregations explaining the UUA's decision to oppose, including the relevant General Assembly policy, the UUA's Washington Office for Advocacy Director Rob Keithan said:

"The decision to take a position on a judicial nominee is not one the UUA takes up lightly. The nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. is significantly different from that of Chief Justice John Roberts or Harriet Miers, in that he has an extensive judicial record that clearly reveals his judicial philosophy on a wide range of issues. After extensive research, Unitarian Universalist Association staff agreed that Judge Alito's rulings revealed a pattern of views that were outside the mainstream and hostile to established precedent favoring civil liberties."

The Unitarian Universalist Association believes that the nation's judiciary should protect the rights of all people, regardless of gender, religion, class, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other factors. The Rev. William G. Sinkford, President of the UUA said, "Unitarian Universalists have always honored our commitment to uphold civil liberties. Protecting the freedoms that are at the heart of our democracy is for us a religious, as well as a civic, duty."

The UUA joins other religious and civil rights groups including the Union for Reform Judaism in opposing the nomination of Judge Alito. In a previous statement, Mr. Keithan said, "The Unitarian Universalist Association and our allies will continue to challenge conservative religious fundamentalists and others who claim to speak for all people of faith. There is no single religious perspective on this or any other issue. We hope that all parties involved in the nominations process, including advocacy groups and elected officials, will refrain from using religion as a political weapon. There should be no religious litmus test for judicial nominees, nor tactics that mislabel appropriate questions and concerns as 'attacking' a nominee's faith."

In the media:

• 1/14/06 - The Boston Globe: Churches weigh in on court nomination by Rich Barlow
• 1/11/06 - Arkansas News Bureau: Religious leaders oppose Alito confirmation by Aaron Sadler

For further information:

• 1/13/06 - Read extracts of Judge Alito's testimony during his confirmation hearing
• 12/15/05 - Rob Keithan Letter to US Senators Urging Opposition to Alito Confirmation
• Memo explaining the UUA's decision to oppose, from Rob Keithan (in PDF format )
• Press Release on UUA opposition to Alito confirmation
• Take Action! Join the UUA in opposing the Alito confirmation (in PDF format )
• Download a flyer for your congregation's bulletin board or for distribution to members
• Talking points for religious leaders wishing to express opposition to the Alito nomination (in PDF format )
• UUA 2004 Statement of Conscience on Civil Liberties
• UUA Washington Office for Advocacy's Information on Judicial Nominations
• Religious Leaders Call on Senators to Reject the Manipulation of Faith in the Supreme Court Confirmation Debate

You may also wish to visit these sites:

• Save Our Courts
• Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
• The Interfaith Alliance's Information on Religion and the Supreme Court

Frequently Asked Question: Doesn't this violate the separation of religion and state, or the UUA's tax status?

No. According to the IRS, taking a position on a confirmation is the same as lobbying, which is permissible for 5013c organizations so long as it remains an "unsubstantial" part of the organization's work. The IRS has not provided a guideline for what is "unsubstantial," but experts generally agree that up to 5% is acceptable. Since the definition of activities includes the total amount of money, staff, and volunteer time that goes into the organization, the UUA is not likely to ever come near the 5% line. For more information, see "The Real Rules: Congregations and IRS Guidelines On Advocacy, Lobbying, and Elections."

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100