OpEd: Why the Senate's Offensive Questions to Adeel Mangi Should Concern Us All

"To those who share Mangi’s background, the message is loud and clear: If you wish to serve your country, don’t bother," writes Rahat N. Babar, a former judge on the Superior Court of New Jersey.

By Rahat N. Babar | March 14, 2024

“You condemn what terrorists did to New York on 9/11?” asked Sen. Peter Welch.

“Is this the way you celebrate 9/11?” asked Sen. John Neely Kennedy.

“Do you condemn the atrocities of the Hamas terrorists?” asked Sen. Ted Cruz.

These are just some of the provocative and fruitless questions posed to Adeel Mangi, President Joe Biden’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. An accomplished New Jersey attorney with wide community support, Mangi has never said or written anything in support of the 9/11 attacks or Hamas—and, to the contrary, condemned the events of 9/11 and Oct. 7, 2023, in response to these queries.

Judges on the federal courts play a crucial role in our society, and the process for selecting them should be rigorous. A wide panoply of questions about a candidate’s professional qualifications, character, and temperament, including some very uncomfortable personal questions like finances and medical history, are fair game. The questions posed to Mangi at his confirmation hearings were not.

Why did some senators pose such irrelevant, inappropriate, and even offensive questions to Mangi? They cited his stint as a member of an advisory group for the Center for Security, Race, and Rights at Rutgers Law School, which has hosted controversial speakers in the past regarding the Middle East.

But as Mangi testified repeatedly, in testimony that remains unrebutted, he merely had a limited research advisory role, not a governance role, at the center. He played no role in planning the events or selecting the speakers in question—and actually had no idea who the speakers were.

I can’t help but wonder: Would another candidate who held the identical professional achievements as Mangi, but did not share his personal background, have received the same treatment? I have my doubts.

The White House has argued that Mangi, who would be the first Muslim American to serve on any federal appellate court if confirmed, “has been subjected to uniquely hostile attacks, in a way other nominees have not—precisely because of his Muslim faith.” And a wide range of outside groups—including the Anti-Defamation League, a leading organization in the battle against antisemitism—have echoed these complaints.

I am most concerned over the long-term chilling effect of this distasteful episode. Mangi would be the first Muslim American to serve on any federal appellate court; will we ever have a second?

I worry that those who would aspire to judicial or other government service will second-guess their aspirations. They may observe the personal attacks, the resulting risk to personal safety, and determine—understandably—that the cost to serve their country may simply be too high for them. To those who share Mangi’s background, the message is loud and clear: If you wish to serve your country, don’t bother.

Apart from the deep individual harm, the nation suffers, potentially losing not only a generation of talent with diverse personal and professional experiences, but also an opportunity to compose a federal bench that reflects the changing demographics of the United States. Judges bring to bear their experience and judgment, and those who are conversant in the communities that they serve can render better informed decisions.

I know this first-hand. When Gov. Phil Murphy appointed me to the state’s judiciary, I was the first Bangladeshi American to ever serve on the court. Being a “first” did not seem so out of the ordinary since, for most of my professional life, I had grown accustomed to being the “only” one in the room. I am convinced, however, that my time in public service and the community, coupled with my life experiences, formed within me a unique perspective that allowed me to perform as a judge more effectively.

The same will hold true for Mangi, and his impact will be felt even more broadly as a judge on the Third Circuit.

Yes, service calls for a degree of sacrifice. But it does not call on those to absorb meritless and reckless personal attacks. Our politics need not countenance such behavior. The Senate must confirm Mangi and demonstrate, in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, that the better angels of our nature can prevail.

Rahat N. Babar is the deputy executive director and interim general counsel at the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and a former judge on the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Originally Posted: https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2024/03/14/why-the-senates-offensive-questions-to-adeel-mangi-should-concern-us-all/

Reprinted with permission from the March 14, 2024, issue of the New Jersey Law Journal. © 2024 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.