-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of my highest priorities has been the confirmation of judges to fill vacancies on the Federal bench.

Since the beginning of the Biden administration, the Senate has confirmed over 191 highly qualified, independent, and evenhanded jurists to the Federal bench. It is my belief that there will be a total of 193 in just a matter of days. They represent the best of our legal system--demographically and professionally diverse judges who respect the rule of law, adhere to precedent, and above all, answer only to the Constitution. We should add another nominee to that list-- Adeel Mangi--who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

What an amazing resume. Mr. Mangi is eminently qualified. He graduated from Oxford and Harvard Law School. He spent more than 20 years in private practice at one of the top law firms in the United States. He focuses his practice on commercial litigation. Mr. Mangi has served as counsel of record in more than 30 matters before Federal appellate courts as well as eight amicus briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has gone above and beyond in his pro bono practice, devoting more than 4,000 hours to representing clients in religious discrimination, asylum, and employment discrimination cases.

Based on his record, you would think Mr. Mangi would be quickly confirmed, but I left out one fact on his resume: He is a Muslim American.

The treatment of this nominee before the Senate Judiciary Committee has reached a new low in many ways but also with historic echoes. More than 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall, who would become the first Black American to serve on the Supreme Court. In his confirmation hearing, Justice Marshall faced racist questions and McCarthy-like accusations that he was a Communist. If that sounds familiar, it is because Mr. Mangi--the first Muslim American nominated to the Federal appellate court--faced similar treatment at his hearing before our committee.

Committee Republicans subjected him to irrelevant, combative lines of questioning about the Israel-Hamas war. They even asked whether he celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks in his home. Think about that for a second: An American coming before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of the Muslim faith, is being asked if he celebrates the 9/11 anniversary in his home each year.

During the hearing and while under oath, Mr. Mangi unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism in all its forms and condemned any acts of terrorism no fewer than 10 times--10 times at one hearing. He also repeatedly denounced any form of hate or bigotry.

Any insinuation that Mr. Mangi is anti-Semitic or a terrorist sympathizer is rooted in anti-Muslim bigotry that has no place in our country or in Congress. The claims are simply false. He has represented a broad coalition of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other religious groups.

As Mr. Mangi said, it is ``distinctly American for people of so many different faiths to come together in unity in this manner.''

What has been un-American has been the treatment Mr. Mangi has faced since his hearing. Republicans are trying to blame Mr. Mangi for statements by other people at events he didn't even attend and wasn't even aware of. That is guilt by association. It is wrong. It is unfair.

Republicans have unfairly attacked Mr. Mangi for his nominal affiliation with the Alliance of Families for Justice. They falsely-- falsely--claim that he supports ``cop killers''--that he supports ``cop killers.'' That outrageous allegation could not be farther from the truth.

In Mr. Mangi's own words, he has ``not represented or otherwise provided legal services to any individual convicted of killing a law enforcement officer.''

In addition, he has clearly stated:

I condemn any violence against law enforcement officers without equivocation.

As Mr. Mangi noted, it is ``shocking and false'' to suggest that he has sympathy for attacks on law enforcement.

On the other hand, during the Trump administration, Republicans voted unanimously to confirm two judges who had personally represented individuals who had killed police officers. Those individuals were entitled to their right to counsel--I am not arguing that point--but it just shows you how far they have gone in establishing a new standard--a totally unfair standard.

The treatment of Mr. Mangi by the Republicans puts their hypocrisy on full display. There cannot be one standard for Republican appointees and another for Democrats. Based on Mr. Mangi's actual record, more than 125 civil rights and human rights organizations support him-- organizations representing more than 1 million Jewish Americans, including the National Council of Jewish Women and the Anti-Defamation League.

I want to say this point: After the terrible hearing that he was subjected to in the committee in December, the Anti-Defamation League volunteered a statement to our committee, which I read into the record, in defense of Mr. Mangi and in criticism of the harsh and unfair criticism of those at his hearing who blamed him for being anti- Semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth. These other organizations and ADL have openly supported his nomination and condemn the treatment he faced at his hearing.

In addition, Mr. Mangi has received the support of a number of law enforcement organizations, including the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and a bipartisan group of former New Jersey State attorneys general and U.S. attorneys.

Any judicial nominee should expect a close examination of his legal career before the committee. Since first being nominated, Mr. Mangi has been prepared for just that. However, he should not have to answer for baseless and bigoted attacks that do not accurately reflect him or his record in many different ways.

In a letter of support, retired Third Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis contrasted Mr. Mangi's experience as a nominee to his own experience as one of only two Black judges nominated to the Federal appellate court by President George H. W. Bush. Judge Lewis noted that he was treated with respect by Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators, who held the majority. Judge Lewis urged the Senate to treat Mr. Mangi with the same level of respect that he received.

He wrote:

If people from underrepresented communities believe they will be unfairly attacked, stereotyped, and rejected by the Senate, they are likely to think twice about being nominated, thus hindering efforts to make our courts look more like America.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source