The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
An Unfair and Uninformed Attack On Rebecca Taibleson's Jewish Faith
The Jewish Federation is a widely regarded Jewish charity that supports all Jews, and it is beyond the pale to attack a person based on their Rabbi.
Last month, I wrote about President Trump's nomination of Rebecca Taibleson to the Seventh Circuit. In recent weeks, I've heard rumors of opposition to Taibleson's nomination on the right. All candidates should be subject to public scrutiny, but one set of attacks, I think, crossed the line.
Taibleson has been attacked for donating a small sum of money to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. In most cities with a Jewish population, the Federation exists as an umbrella organization that supports all Jewish causes. The Federation supports Jewish education, summer camps, services for seniors, helps Jewish people in times of crisis, and more. To be sure, there are Jewish people on the far left of the aisle. (Trust me, I know.) And they support all sorts of DEI activities. But the Federation also supports conservative and orthodox groups as well. And in our current moment, the Federation has been steadfast on support for Israel. Am Yisrael Chai. The people of Israel live.
My kids go to a JCC camp, which is funded by the Jewish Federation of Houston. Do I approve of everything the Federation does? Of course not. But I support much of their work, and have financially supported the Federation of the years.
I agree with Mike Fragoso's analogy to Catholic Charities:
But, you see, Taibleson donated a paltry sum to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation and they support LGBT rights. The Milwaukee Jewish Federation is the blanket Jewish social-services organization in Milwaukee, sort of like a Jewish version of Catholic Charities. Should we think that Brett Kavanaugh supports open borders because he volunteered for Catholic Charities? That will be news to the illegal aliens getting caught up in Los Angeles's renewed ICE sweeps. The fact is that you can infer malice in most any charitable act if only you choose to approach it in bad faith.
Another attack is far more scurrilous: that the Rabbi who married Rebecca and her husband supports LGBT causes. I think going after a person's spiritual leader, and house of worship, is beyond the pale. Full stop. The Religious Test Cause, whatever it means, should ensure that we do not scrutinize how a person worships the almighty. Moreover, most Reform synagogues have inclusive policies for gays and lesbians. But that doesn't mean everyone who attends the synagogue agrees on those issues. As I've said many times before, there is no single standard of Judaism. There is no Jewish equivalent of a pope. In a given synagogue, worshippers are not required to agree with their rabbi on everything or anything. Indeed, it is an old pastime for people to complain about everything their rabbi says and does.
Do we really want to start scrutinizing the particular religious beliefs of a judicial candidate? I think the answer has to be no.
Tomorrow is Rebecca's hearing, on Constitution Day fittingly enough. I hope these attacks concerning religion stay out of the proceedings.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So my establishing a "Dr. Baruch Goldstein Jewish Health Professions Scholarship" might be a problem??
Thank you, Josh. Really.
I'd suggest you reflect a bit on this, and see what conclusions you come to wrt your allies on the right.
You might also reflect on the Texas A&M matter Keith discusses.
I do hope that Josh takes a moment to reflect on this even if I'm a little skeptical it will actually happen.
But having said that, I'm not sure the left is much better with this sort of thing. There's a lot of activist voices looking to tear down anyone that they can find any sort of connection to ideological impurity.
For fanatics, reflection isn't really part of the deal.
I think going after a person's spiritual leader, and house of worship, is beyond the pale. Full stop.
What if your spiritual leader is Fred Phelps? Jeremiah Wright? Jim Jones?
Personally, I think we should have a very broad Overton Window w/r/t people's religious practices and beliefs (including as regards their religious leaders), but that does not mean that absolutely everything should be off limits.
ETA: To be clear, attacking someone because their rabbi embraces reasonably mainstream views on LGBT issues is absurd. It is the flip side of attacking a Catholic because their priest takes the (also reasonably mainstream) view that homosexual relations are sinful, or that abortion is morally wrong.
Be happy I don't agree with you.
His name is Charlie Kirk
Frank
“Jewish donors have a lot of explaining to do. A lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical, open border neoliberal quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits.”
They do
You do realize that many Jews believe the same thing. The notion that this is some kind of proof that Kirk was an anti-semite is laughable.
In fact, his death was deeply mourned among many Jews.
Citation needed.
Also, though: https://antisemitism.adl.org/power/ Seems like a pretty similar sentiment
1. Steven Miller.
2. ????
The Chief Rabbi of Israel, for one.
https://vinnews.com/2025/09/16/607452/
Me for one, you (Redacted)
And you still haven’t called it, I can’t call it for you
Frank
There are of course plenty of conservative Jews. How many of them believe that Jews are the "No. 1 funding mechanism" of Marxism in the U.S.?
“ Kirk was an anti-semite”
I most definitely did not say anything of the sort. In fact, I didn’t even bring up Mr Kirk. However, the quote does seem related to some of the things Josh is talking about.
It is interesting— is it not— where your mind immediately went, though, isn’t it?
Lefty mind reading.
He's dead, he got what he deserved, amirite?
Dancing on graves is kinda icky, but you be you.
I provided a quote from Mr Kirk. You’re mind reading with the whole “I know what you REALLY believe” thing.
And again, I would urge you to reflect on why you view quoting Mr. Kirk as “dancing on his grave.”
Tom Tomorrow was pretty good on this the other day.
Yes, exactly. My many observant Jewish friends are befuddled by if not furious with many of their secular brethren who all too often the chief founders, leaders, funders, and passionate supporters of ridiculously progressive causes. This is not exactly a secret or even the subject of debate, but it is one of those things that is imprudent for a gentile to take note of unless he is willing to be instantly tagged as an anti-Semite.
It does take a special kind of stupid to string those words together. (Yes, I know who you're quoting. Maybe if he weren't a community college dropout he'd have known how nonsensical they were.)
Heck, what about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Pretty sure Indy didn't just say "well, I guess worshiping Kali means practicing child slavery, black magic, and ritual human sacrifice means I can't ask questions or punch some bad guys."
Let's not make "generally good practices" into irrational absolutes, folks.
The Religious Test Cause, whatever it means, should ensure that we do not scrutinize how a person worships the almighty.
You forgot "or whether".
As Will Rogers famously responded when someone told him they were an "Agnostic"
"We all worship in our own way"
and if he didn't say it, he should have.
Frank "Will Rogers didn't say 1/2 the things he didn't say"
So can I criticize Israel’s government without being anti-Semitic? Since there’s no one head of Judaísm?
Also, side note, the Pope isn’t the head of Christianity. He’s just the head of the Román
Catholic church.
You all look alike to us.
Hint: Only one of them wears yarmulkes.
Touché.
You still have to call it, I can’t call it for you.
This is pretty straightforward.
Seersucker: Episcopalian.
Funny hats: Eastern Orthodox.
What about all the other denominations? We need a sartorial key.
On the Jewish side, I can tell you that if the rabbi wears a dress, she ain't Orthodox.
Best snort laugh in today's comments!
"So can I criticize Israel’s government without being anti-Semitic?"
Of course. Happens daily.
If the only foreign government you ever criticize is the Israeli government, it might be different.
So can I criticize Israel’s government without being anti-Semitic? Since there’s no one head of Judaísm?
Not sure what the connection between your two sentences is.
Answer to your first question is Yes. In fact, Israeli and Jewish media are full of such criticisms without being anti-semitic. Funny how there are thousands of examples of that, and yet there are also thousands of examples of anti-semitic criticism.
I’m thinking of Trump last year saying that a Jew who votes for democrats hates their religion and Israel. In that same vein, i know some have said it’s antisemitic to criticize Israel.
BL,
In principle, you are correct, BUT I am not so sure about Haaretz.
I see no attack on her Jewish faith. Please explain what I'm missing. And in any case, if her 'Jewish faith' included support for transgenderism in all its glory, could she not be criticized for that? If a Christian denomination believes in slavery, should a follower be free from criticism? There's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made here, and Josh made it - in part. The headline is fundamentally dishonest.
Reform Judaism, in particular, openly supports allowing Jews to define Judaism in their own terms. So even accepting your premise, there is zero reason to think that because a Reform rabbi marries you, you agree with either that Rabbi or the official Reform position on any given issue.
For that matter, the fact that you got married by someone is a particularly poor indication of one's ultimate religious values. Why do people choose a particular rabbi to get married? "We just moved to the area, and this is the only rabbi we know." "We have friends who referred us to this rabbi as doing beautiful ceremonies." "It's the rabbi from my childhood who saw me grow up, and it would be particularly meaningful to have this rabbi do my marriage." "The bride's parents live in X, where we are holding the wedding, and Rabbi Y is the only rabbi in town." "This is the only rabbi in town willing to do intermarriages." And so on. You know what I've never, ever heard any Jewish person say: "We chose this rabbi because we checked the rabbi's theological and political views, and they align 100% with ours."
You left out: "Rabbi Y is a dear friend of mine[, and even if I don't agree with some of his political beliefs, he is still a great person.]" The bracketed part should not even need to be said, because in a healthy society, shared politics should be about #46 on the list of reasons to be friends with someone.
"openly supports allowing Jews to define Judaism in their own terms"
Unitarianism for Jews who find real Judaism icky.
“real Judaism”
Oh boy.
Yes, real Judaism. There are also sects such Karaitic Jews.
“Yes, real Judaism”
Does that imply the existence of “fake” Judaism? Who decides which is which, anyways?
I’m curious. Are there any boundaries at all? Can one worship her favorite idol? Excise the inconvenient commandments? Rock polytheism?
"Taibleson has been attacked for donating a small sum of money to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation."
I don't see where that comes from so....
"(The First Liberty Institute) accused Taibleson and her husband of being 'consistent Democrat donors' and pointed to her work defending former President Joe Biden’s student-loan-forgiveness policy from a legal challenge. It also said that she has donated to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, which supports J-Pride Milwaukee, 'a group of greater Milwaukee lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning Jewish people, their friends and allies, wishing to share social, religious, political, educational, and cultural activities in supportive environments with the rest of our communities, families, and friends.'
The First Liberty Institute, which has been described by Americans United for Separation of Church and State as 'a Christian Nationalist legal outfit with a deceptive name,' has long remained firmly in Trump’s corner."
https://www.notus.org/courts/trump-judicial-nominee-rebecca-taibleson-conservative-legal-group-first-liberty-institute
Seems like she's got some 'splaining to do (and not sure why Prof. Blackman is obstensibly on her side.)
"Seems like she's got some 'splaining to do (and not sure why Prof. Blackman is obstensibly on her side.)"
Look, I give Prof. Blackman as hard a time as the next person, but it's important to acknowledge when someone you disagree with says something that you don't disagree with.
That he is defending a nominee from being smeared by a Christian Nationalist group because of her Rabbi and because she donated to a Jewish Charity (the same one that Blackman also has) is ... good for him.
I would tend to credit his take and greater knowledge of this specific issue (re: the interplay of how the Jewish Federation funds different organizations that benefit Jewish people) than a bunch of Christian Nationalists.
While I wouldn't use the verbiage used by Prof. Blackman, I agree completely with the sentiments expressed in this post.
I will point out two things-
1. At a certain point, trying to attack "the other" (one's perceived enemies) through some sort of increasingly esoteric game of "Seven Degrees of Political Kevin Bacon" is not good for civic society. I belong to, and donate to, a number of organizations that I don't agree with 100%, and trying to ensure political and partisan "purity" will just lead to further division. Civic organizations and charities bring Americans together- they shouldn't be used to divide us.
2. As I discussed in another thread, I think that some people are beginning to have a realization that ... maybe the Trumpist MAGA GOP isn't actually the open-minded and tolerant place that is going to be welcoming to the Jews. There is a difference between "useful" and "accepted."
The scorpion? He will will end up stinging you. I mean ... hitch your wagon to an authoritarian, nationalist, and nativist movement with strong and now open demands for a Christian nation?
What could go wrong, amirite?
Rebecca Taibleson was one of five candidates recommended to President Trump by Wisconsin Sens. Ron Johnson (R) and Tammy Baldwin (D). The fact that a far-left senator like Baldwin not only supports her, but actually recommended her, should give anyone pause about her conservative bona fides, as should the fact that she is the first Trump judicial nominee to face any significant opposition from conservative groups. Regardless, I imagine she will be confirmed overwhelmingly without much ado. I suspect she will ultimately be a disappointment to conservatives, but I guess time will tell.
I'd have said the fact that a far-right wing nut like Ron Johnson not only supports her, but actually recommended her, should give anyone pause about her sanity and honesty. But if he and Baldwin both support her, then that suggests that she's actually a reasonable moderate.
"ultimately be a disappointment to conservatives"
Of course she will be. Within 6 months of taking office.
"Seventh Circuit"
A joint recommendation for a circuit seat? With no "blue slip" aplicable? Madness letting Baldwin veto a circuit appointment.
I think going after a person's spiritual leader, and house of worship, is beyond the pale. Full stop. The Religious Test Cause, whatever it means, should ensure that we do not scrutinize how a person worships the almighty.
If your spiritual leader is a virulent cult leader, it might raise a red flag, so I'm not sure about the absolutism here. This will rarely be the case. And, even there, you probably can focus on other things.
I respect the general philosophy of the two posts without needing to go all the way. For instance, I just read a book written by a Jewish atheist. She and her husband specifically chose who to preside over their wedding in significant part to match their overall beliefs. It is not going to be totally meaningless.
Nonetheless, there is a grasping at straws quality here. Besides, shouldn't conservatives give her a special pass for helping Kavanaugh? Even if she is not 99/100% pure seems pretty worthy of conservative support. Plus she can be used to show how reasonable you are the next time you support an Emil Bove.
https://www.notus.org/courts/trump-judicial-nominee-rebecca-taibleson-conservative-legal-group-first-liberty-institute
"There is no Jewish equivalent of a pope. In a given synagogue, worshippers are not required to agree with their rabbi on everything or anything."
Roman Catholics don't have to agree with everything or anything the Pope says, and not everything he says is doctrine. The only real mechanism to even try enforcing that is denial of partaking of the Eucharist, but you still get/have to be a Catholic.
Didn't president Obama get ripped by everyone for who is minister was?
Yes, and it was perfectly appropriate that he be. (I don't know whether the same is true about this rabbi and this nominee.)
Interesting that both Fragoso and Blackman assume Kavanaugh only makes rulings based on his personal preference rather than the law. Even I don't think that's entirely true.
Taibleson is MAGA fascist trash. Her religion is not relevant.
The NYT wedding announcement is sweet.
https://archive.ph/5J6OT