-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an extraordinary responsibility as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--important legislation and, probably more important, the filling of vacancies in our Federal judiciary.

Under article III of our Constitution, we create judges, and there are approximately 890 of these Federal judges across the United States. As vacancies occur, as they often do, the Senate Judiciary Committee, working with the White House and Members of the Senate, has to do background checks on these individuals, submit them to the FBI for further background checks, do our own due diligence, consider them in an open hearing before the committee, and ultimately vote in committee before they come to the floor for advice and consent.

So far this year--I should say in this term--under President Biden, we have had 181 Federal judges who have gone through this process--been cleared on the floor, reported out of the Senate--and are now serving their Nation in this capacity.

I can tell you that it is not an easy process. Lengthy questionnaires are given to each nominee to identify so many details of their lives, I find it hard to believe they kept track and record of it, but they did. Then, of course, Agencies call to verify the contents and answers in those questionnaires. Then they go through close scrutiny by the staff of the Judiciary Committee on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. Then comes the day of reckoning when they have their hearing in a public setting. Many of these nominees are questioned extensively by members of the committee. I will tell you, politics ain't beanbag, and when it comes to the questions asked of judicial nominees, it is a serious process.

We have gone through more than 200 under the Biden administration in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Some of them have had a tough time of it, many of them had an easy time of it, but they all go through the same process.

One of the most important accomplishments of this administration has been the confirmation of highly qualified, I believe evenhanded judges to the Federal bench.

As I mentioned, to date, we have confirmed 181 lifetime judges, including a number of firsts--the first Black woman and public defender on the Supreme Court of the United States, the first Muslim-American judge on a district court, the first Asian-American judge on the Seventh Circuit. We should add another first to that list--Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit.

Mr. Mangi is a highly qualified nominee with incredible credentials and more than two decades of litigation experience. He would be the first Muslim American to ever serve on a Federal appellate court.

Nevertheless, he is going through scrutiny unlike anything I have ever seen. He has been criticized and questioned in a way that I have never seen before in the committee. Unfortunately, many of the questions that have been raised about Mr. Mangi and his background have created suspicions in people's minds that his religion is the reason for the questioning.

Treatment of this highly qualified nominee has sometimes reached an alltime low. At the hearing in December, committee Republicans subjected Mr. Mangi to combative lines of questioning about the Israel- Hamas war. This is a man who is seeking to serve on a Federal bench in appellate court. The questions that are asked of him were more appropriately asked of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense.

At one point, a Republican Senator asked this Muslim American the following question: Do you celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 in your home? Think about that for a second. Because he is Muslim, this Senator thought it was appropriate to ask him whether he celebrated 9/11 in his home. He, of course, said no. He was a resident of New York and thought it was a tragedy that occurred in our Nation, and he had friends and family who were affected by that tragedy.

During his hearing, under oath, Mr. Mangi unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism in all forms and condemned any acts of terrorism no fewer than 10 times. Think of that. Because he is a Muslim American, he was asked 10 different times whether he was anti-Semitic. He, of course, said no on each occasion. He also repeatedly denounced any form of hatred or bigotry in his answers to written questions.

Any insinuation that Mr. Mangi is anti-Semitic is rooted in prejudice that has no place in our country, and claims that were made are false. As he explained, ``I have [ ] worked extensively to advance religious liberty, which I consider to be a fundamental American value, and to combat religious bigotry against any religious group. I have been proud to represent a unique and massive coalition that I built over many years involving major Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other religious groups on matters of common interest.''

Mr. Mangi has also been unfairly attacked for his nominal affiliation with the Alliance of Families for Justice. Critics have falsely claimed that because of his minimal involvement with this organization, he has somehow associated himself with violent criminals and supports ``cop killers.'' That charge was made on the floor of the Senate against Mr. Mangi.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As a longtime corporate lawyer, Mr. Mangi has never said or written anything--anything--that suggests he supports individuals who have murdered members of law enforcement. He has never--never--represented or otherwise provided legal counsel to anyone accused of killing a police officer.

During the Trump administration, Republicans voted unanimously to confirm two judges who had personally represented individuals who had killed police officers.

Let me add quickly that everyone in America has the right to counsel. The crimes they may be charged with could be horrendous, but they still have the right to legal representation.

But to think that they would accuse Mr. Mangi of somehow supporting cop killers when he has never been involved with a client charged with that crime--the treatment of Mr. Mangi by some Republicans puts their hypocrisy on full display. There cannot be one standard for Republican appointees and another for Democratic appointees.

Mr. Mangi is eminently qualified. He is a graduate of Oxford and Harvard Law School. He spent more than two decades in private practice at a preeminent law firm, focusing on complex commercial litigation. He has served as counsel of record in more than 30 matters before Federal appellate courts, as well as eight amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court.

Throughout his career, Mr. Mangi has also demonstrated a deep commitment to pro bono work. In fact, he has devoted more than 4,000 hours to representing clients in religious discrimination, employment discrimination, and asylum cases.

Given Mr. Mangi's record, he has earned the support of a wide range of organizations, including organizations representing more than 1 million Jewish Americans.

Listen to what the National Council of Jewish Women had to say about Mr. Mangi:

He is highly qualified to serve on this court, bringing a wealth of professional and personal experience in addition to extraordinary legal qualifications.

Yet some of the Republican Senators on the committee suggested he was anti-Semitic, prejudiced against Jewish people. This endorsement by the National Council of Jewish Women clearly says otherwise.

Following Mr. Mangi's hearing, the Anti-Defamation League, an organization which is dedicated to rooting out prejudice against Jewish people, sent a statement to the committee, unsolicited by me, in which they said:

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.

Mr. Mangi also has the support of a number of law enforcement organizations, from the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives to the Hispanic American Law Enforcement Association.

Mr. Mangi stated:

I am ready and prepared to be held accountable for any statement that I have ever made, any word that I have ever written, or any action that I have ever taken.

He went on to say:

I am not and should not be held accountable for statements made by people I do not know at events that I was not involved [in].

Mr. Mangi is right. He should be judged based on his record, not on dishonest, bad-faith insinuations.

I urge my colleagues to dismiss the smear campaign against Mr. Mangi and support his nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source