UUA Opposes Alito Confirmation as Threat to Civil Liberties

[benny05]

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.

The UUA has never before opposed the confirmation of a nominee to the Supreme Court. In a statement issued to over 1000 congregations that make up the Association, 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."

http://www.uua.org/news/2005/051212_alito/index.html

Now, that's progressive...

[hvn_nbr_2]

1. Here comes the IRS

Churches lose their IRS status if they take liberal positions. Falwell and Robertson can do all the partisan braying they like, but take a liberal position, lose tax exemption.

[Maat]

2. They can't get them here.

The church in question has to be "electioneering."

Here, there is no election involved.

They are always free to discuss the issues and the church's position on the issue in question; it is best, however, not to mention names.

[hvn_nbr_2]

3. Oh, yeah, I guess that's right. It's not an elected office. n/t