[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2483-S2484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Nomination of Adeel Abdullah Mangi

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have spoken repeatedly about the 
nomination of Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Notwithstanding his anti-Semitic affiliations, it seems every week a 
new law enforcement organization announces its opposition to this 
nominee for his record of associating with the most radical type of 
anti-police activists--those who support cop killers.
  Apparently, some Democrats are finally listening to law enforcement 
and the Jewish groups sounding the alarm.
  Last week, a number of Democratic Senators reportedly told the White 
House that they didn't think Mr. Mangi has the votes. This, of course, 
produced a panic on the left. This week, a New York Times columnist 
accused Republicans of Islamophobia for criticizing Mangi and his 
dalliance with anti-Semitic activists. Democrats, on the other hand, 
were urged to get in line and vote for him.
  Who is giving this advice?
  Well, the author of the piece herself had previously speculated that 
Israel may be engaged in genocide in Gaza. She called the Israeli war 
of self-defense a ``charnel house of horrors.'' She defended the anti-
Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and she even got 
mealymouthed about the October 7 attacks, saying:

       [T]wo can play the game of who started it and who is to 
     blame, rolling back the clock to biblical times to try to fix 
     ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe of Israel and 
     Palestine.

  So, again, what has Mr. Mangi done to deserve friends like these or, 
indeed, to merit such a vehement, blinkered defense from the Biden 
administration?
  Just yesterday, the White House called opposition to Mr. Mangi's 
nomination a "smear campaign solely because he would make history as 
the first Muslim to serve as a federal appellate judge.''

  How insulting. What self-respecting attorney wants to hear that a 
President cares more about the demographic tick boxes than their life's 
work?
  Besides, in the case of Mr. Mangi, Senate Republicans' opposition has 
absolutely nothing to do with his Muslim faith. Rather, it has 
everything to do with his longstanding sympathy for and association 
with some of the most radical elements in society.
  I happily voted for the first Muslim article III judge at the outset 
of the Biden administration, also of New Jersey--so did 31 of my 
Republican colleagues--in one of the largest bipartisan votes for a 
judge in the Biden Presidency. But we didn't support this nominee 
because he was Muslim; it was because he had an extraordinary personal 
and professional background.
  Mr. Mangi's associated center at Rutgers asks convicted terrorists if 
we overly ``exceptionalize'' 9/11. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, 
thought
9/11 was exceptional and joined the Army soon after, rendering 
honorable service in Iraq.
  Mr. Mangi spent his career making millions in defending corporate 
clients like foreign energy companies, massive drugmakers, and even 
chocolate monopolies, all while volunteering his time to support anti-
police activists. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, supported law 
enforcement professionally, first at Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement and then as an assistant U.S. attorney.
  We are told that any questioning of Mr. Mangi's record is 
Islamophobia. On the other hand, the terrorist-adjacent Council on 
American-Islamic Relations demanded that Senators probe Judge 
Quraishi's experience in the Army and in law enforcement, saying their 
concerns ``must be addressed.''
  According to Democrats' rhetoric, shouldn't this organization also be 
condemned for Islamophobia?
  Two Muslim Biden nominees with records as different as night and 
day--Republicans happily supported the nominee who served his country 
and backed the blue. We have and we will continue to oppose the nominee 
who has repeatedly chosen, instead, to mingle with supporters of 
terrorists and cop killers.
  I hope more Democrats will join us in opposing Mr. Mangi, and should 
they fall victim to spurious associations of bias, perhaps they should 
remind the White House of an alternative candidate, rested and ready, 
in the Federal courthouse in Trenton, NJ.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Adeel Mangi has been nominated by 
President Biden to serve on the Third Circuit. We have had a hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee, a vote in the committee, and his name 
is on the calendar.
  In recent weeks, we have heard an amazing number of attacks against 
this individual. It is hard to imagine some of the things that are 
being said about him. They bear no resemblance to the truth.
  What was said this morning on the floor of the U.S. Senate is 
painful. To accuse a nominee of being anti-Semitic is heartbreaking 
when it is not true. In this case, it clearly is not true.
  After the initial hearing on Mr. Mangi, who would be the first Muslim 
to serve on the Federal circuit bench, we received communications from 
several groups in defense of his nomination and critical of the 
questioning that took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of 
the most noteworthy came from the Anti-Defamation League.
  The ADL issued a statement in response to what they called ``the 
inappropriate and prejudicial treatment of

[[Page S2484]]

Adeel Abdullah Mangi, a nominee for the U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals.'' I am going to read this in its entirety because it clearly 
rebuts the charge that was made on the Senate floor today that this 
nominee is anti-Semitic:

       As the leading anti-hate organization in the world, whose 
     mission is ``to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and 
     to secure justice and fair treatment to all,'' ADL is 
     compelled to speak out about the inappropriate and 
     prejudicial treatment of Adeel Abdullah Mangi, a nominee for 
     the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, during the Judiciary 
     Committee Hearing on December 13, 2023.

  The ADL statement goes on to say:

       During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Mangi was subjected to 
     aggressive questioning unrelated to . . . professional 
     expertise or qualifications. Rather, he was forced to provide 
     responses to a wide range of inquiries regarding his views on 
     global strategic considerations in a manner that 
     inappropriately politicized these issues and raised serious 
     questions regarding pretext and bias.

  The ADL statement goes on to say:

       Just as associating Jewish Americans with certain views or 
     beliefs regarding Israeli government actions would be deemed 
     antisemitic, berating the first American Muslim federal 
     appellate judicial nominee with endless questions that appear 
     to have been motivated by bias towards his religion is 
     profoundly wrong.

  The ADL goes on to say:

       Hate, bias, and bigotry have no place in government, 
     especially in the hallowed halls of Congress. When nominees 
     approach a congressional hearing, their religion, heritage, 
     race, gender, or any other protected identity characteristic 
     should not be a subject for political fodder.
       This was an attempt to create controversy where one did not 
     exist.
       ADL urges leaders to refrain from fueling discrimination 
     and hate--and urges the Senate to offer Mr. Mangi a fair 
     vote, based on his qualifications and fitness for the job.

  That statement from the ADL--as they describe themselves, the 
``leading anti-hate organization in the world'' when it comes to the 
Jewish people--is specific and directed toward those who are really 
making criticisms of Mr. Mangi which are not warranted in any aspect of 
fact.
  To have a man characterized as anti-Semitic on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate is a gross miscarriage of justice in this case. This gentleman 
could not have been more explicit in his statements against terrorism, 
against what happened in Israel on October 7, and the fact that he is 
coming before this body with no prejudice whatsoever toward the Jewish 
people.
  The questions that were asked of him, a Muslim nominee, are 
heartbreaking. At one point, one of the Republican Senators asked if he 
celebrated 9/11 in his family household. He said: Of course not. He was 
sickened by what happened on that day and had friends who were 
associated with the losses.
  This kind of treatment of any nominee is unacceptable in America. To 
charge someone as anti-Semitic on the floor of the U.S. Senate is truly 
unfortunate, if not scandalous in itself. We should be fair to every 
nominee, whether proposed by a Democratic or Republican President, and 
we should not have any prejudice or bigotry when it comes to a person 
because of their religious beliefs.
  I am sorry that this was said on the floor of the Senate this 
morning. I hope that the person who did it will have second thoughts 
about whether or not that was appropriate.