The Jewish Center for Justice will, from time to time, advocate for or against the confirmation of a federal judicial nominee. The decision to support or oppose a judicial nomination will be made by the JCJ board (or a working group thereof) in consultation with JCJ staff. Such decisions will be guided by the following criteria, which was formulated by JCJ’s judicial nominations working group comprised of members of our Lawyers’ Committee:
- A recognition of the substantial impact that federal jurists, who enjoy lifetime appointments, have on the wide array of policy concerns to which JCJ is committed, including, but not limited to:
- Voting Rights
- Economic Justice
- Climate Change/Environmental Justice
- Gender Equity and Reproductive Rights
- Racial Justice
- LGBTQ Rights
- Criminal Justice and Police Reform
- Immigration
- Gun Violence Prevention
- Israel
- Separation of Religion and State
- Privacy and Civil Liberties
- Free Speech
- Access to Health Care
- An understanding that the fair application of the United States’ Constitution and other fundamental laws is critical to protecting American democracy and important individual rights (including, in particular, the rights of members of minority and disenfranchised communities).
- A careful review of the nominee’s judicial record (if applicable), prior written or oral statements, and other conduct that might bear on, or provide guidance in, predicting whether the nominee is likely to uphold the Constitution, be fair-minded and impartial, and advance the cause of justice under the law.
- A belief that the federal judiciary (and each court within it) should be (i) racially diverse; (ii) approximately half women; (iii) comprise jurists of varied backgrounds, lived experiences, perspectives, and legal practices (including those not historically well-represented in the judiciary, such as public interest lawyers, civil rights lawyers, labor lawyers, and plaintiff’s lawyers); and (iv) include substantial representation of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ Americans, Americans with disabilities, and Americans who have experienced economically disadvantaged circumstances.
- The conviction that a nominee for the federal bench should:
- Be professionally competent with a capacity for intellectual rigor;
- Possess significant professional qualifications and experience and substantial support from the legal community;
- Abide by strict ethical standards and be committed to judicial independence;
- Have integrity and a demonstrated history of support for principles of jurisprudence that advance civil rights and liberties;
- Be committed to legal reasoning and judicial decision-making that is informed by a dedication to fairness, equal justice, access to the courts, and the other progressive American values underlying the Constitution;
- Not be motivated by a desire to favor corporate and other money-driven interests or protect the power of the historically powerful at the expense of others’ rights; and
- Not have a record of racism, sexism, antisemitism, or any other form of bigotry or xenophobia.
The foregoing standards apply with even greater force to nominees for the United States Supreme Court. Such nominees should possess exceptional capabilities, and their tenure on the Court should exemplify the best aspects of the American judicial system.
- The likelihood that confirmation of the nominee would reshape existing jurisprudence or judicial precedent in a manner that would advance or jeopardize one or more of JCJ’s core values.
- The well-informed recommendations and positions of like-minded organizations on the nomination, the rating of the nominee by the American Bar Association, and nature and content of the public discourse regarding the nomination and the nominee.