President Joe Biden’s apparently radical nominee to the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Pakistani-American lawyer Adeel Abdullah Mangi, looks doomed after Senator Jacky Rosen of Nevada became the latest Democrat to publicly announce that she could not support him. Earlier, the other Nevada Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto had joined lame duck maverick Joe Manchin of West Virginia in opposing the nomination, a DEI pick if there ever was one.
In addition to having no judicial experience, Mangi supports two radical organizations that have signaled some rather alarming values, indeed he helps lead them, by serving on the advisory boards of Rutgers Law School’s Center for Security, Race, and Rights and the Alliance of Families for Justice.
The Rutgers center, which Mangi has contributed thousands to support, is under investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee for hosting an event on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks featuring pro-terrorist Sami Al-Arian, who was convicted of providing material support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Center’s director, law professor Sahar Aziz, regularly enlivens his Twitter/”X” feed anti-Semitic rhetoric. Now, these issues could be addressed, explained and defended (though perhaps not successfully), but the aspiring judge used the excuse that he had no knowledge that either of these had occurred in the organization he serves in an advisory capacity when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) asked him about the group’s programming and Aziz’s anti-Semitism.
The Alliance of Families for Justice, on whose advisory board Mangi also serves (since 2019), was co-founded by domestic terrorist Kathy Boudin, the mother of the radical San Francisco DA who refused to enforce the laws as a matter of “social justice.” That organization opposes “mass criminalization”—you know, punishment for lawbreakers. A typical activity was a 2021 event in support of six Black Panther and Black Liberation Army members currently serving life sentences murdering of police officers. In this case as well, Mangi wouldn’t defend the organization, only protesting that he knew nothing about the organization’s programming decisions.
The question then arises: is Mangi lying, engaging in contrived ignorance regarding organizations he participates in leading, or unengaged with two organizations that he has agreed to help guide, thus accepting a position under false pretenses?
I don’t see any other explanation. Any of the three are damning, however, and disqualifying for a position of trust.
Who is responsible for choosing this guy? Does the White House and Justice Department vet Joe’s nominees at all, or do aspiring judges of color just get an automatic pass? I’d like to see the Senate investigate how Biden’s judicial candidates are chosen.
Meanwhile, despite Adeel Abdullah Mangi’s impressive Sgt. Schultz (John Banner) impression (can Mangi do Colonel Klink too?), the White House and its enablers defaulted to “it isn’t what it is” and accused the lawyer’s foes of racism. Of course they did.
White House chief of staff Jeff Zients raged that “some Senate Republicans and their extreme allies are relentlessly smearing Adeel Mangi with baseless accusations” and that the claim that he is anti-police “could not be further from the truth.” Seriously, Jeff? Among those “baseless” accusations is that Mangi is anti-law enforcement because he’s part of an organization that feels cop killers have been excessively punished with prison. Seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. Sen. Cory Booker (D, N.J.) told the Senate that poor Mangi has been “trashed and smeared and maligned.” Funny, I think someone asking to be confirmed as a high-ranking judge without any experience and who admits that he paid no attention to what organizations he supports actually do deserves to be maligned.
One of Mangi’s legal colleagues, Gregory L. Diskant, wrote in the Atlantic that Mangi’s opposition is “grounded in hate.” Oh yeah? Prove it. There are a lot of lawyers I know who I like very much but wouldn’t want in judges robes on a dare.
In an environment where Senate Democrats would unanimous vote to conform a dish sponge if Biden nominated it, the fact that three Democrats have broken ranks and decided to ding this one is pretty convincing evidence that it was irresponsible to nominate Mangi on the facts, and no smears were necessary.
_______________
Sources: Washington Free Beacon; Reuters
Ethics Alarms 
Well, there are several options here.
(1) They know who he is and this is EXACTLY the type of person they want in the job.
(2) They are trying to hold onto the Muslim vote for 2024 and this was the best Muslim judicial candidate they could find.
Now, you may scoff at both of those ideas, but he WAS nominated. There had to be a reason. They aren’t just pulling names randomly from Facebook. Since he doesn’t have experience, they either liked his ideology or he was the best person they could find that qualified. It has to be at least one.
I know you are agin Him, Jack. But what other choice do we have? We are, indeed, circling the drain of self-annhilation.
Not appreciating or trusting DT isn’t the same as not having to conclude that there’s no more responsible choice than voting for him, given the options.