Biden’s nominee linked to anti-Israel think tank with terrorist sympathies

President Biden’s nominee for the ‍Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ⁤Adeel Abdullah Mangi, has sparked controversy ⁣due to his affiliation with a Muslim advocacy ⁢group. This group has been known⁤ to blame Israel for provoking⁢ Hamas’s terrorist attack and ‌has even hosted an ⁣event featuring a convicted terrorist fundraiser on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

Mangi served on the advisory board ​of Rutgers ⁤Law School’s Center for Security, Race and Rights⁣ from 2019 until earlier this⁤ year. During his tenure, ⁢the think tank celebrated anti-Israel college students ⁣and⁣ commemorated the September 11 attacks with an event that included a terrorist fundraiser. Democrats ⁢highlighted the fact that if confirmed, Mangi would be the first Muslim to serve on a federal ‍appellate court, considering it a long-overdue milestone.

However, Mangi’s association with this strongly anti-Israel think tank may hinder his “historic” nomination. The Center for Security, Race and Rights ⁣hosted various‍ events that promoted anti-Israel sentiments, including one featuring Sami ⁤al-Arian, a former professor involved in funding the terrorist group‌ Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Another event focused on the⁤ Boycott, Divestment ⁢and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel’s settler colonialism and apartheid,​ led‍ by Hatem Bazian, the founder of Students for Justice‌ in Palestine.

In addition, the ⁤center ⁣collaborated with Palestine Legal⁢ to provide “legal strategy” to anti-Israel college students. Palestine Legal⁢ has a history of praising Hamas, ​Hezbollah, and Iran. Despite Hamas’s⁣ recent terrorist attack, the think tank refused to condemn the ​group, claiming it would ignore decades of colonial violence⁣ and oppression.

Mangi, who left the center’s board in June,⁤ attempted to distance ​himself from these controversial events during his confirmation hearing. He claimed to be unaware of the 9/11 anniversary event featuring Sami al-Arian and expressed unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and ⁢anyone associated with it.

However, some Republicans expressed disbelief that Mangi ⁤remained on the center’s⁣ board after hosting such a contentious event. ‍Senator John Kennedy questioned why Mangi did not resign, to which‍ Mangi responded that he had only learned about the event‍ recently.

Mangi, currently a partner at the law⁢ firm⁤ Patterson Belknap, has come under scrutiny ⁢for his ties to the ⁣Muslim Bar Association ‍of ​New York (MBANY). The MBANY has been criticized‌ for its radical​ and anti-Israel views, which some ​see as a potential bias that could impact Mangi’s ⁣ability to⁢ impartially ‍interpret‍ and uphold the law.

One of the key issues ⁢that ‌has raised concern is the MBANY’s ⁤stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The organization has been accused of spreading misinformation and engaging in​ rhetoric that blames Israel as the sole instigator of⁣ violence in the region. This perspective fails to acknowledge the⁤ complex nature of ⁣the conflict and⁣ undermines the ongoing efforts to establish a peaceful resolution.

Furthermore, the MBANY’s decision ‌to hold an event featuring a ⁣convicted terrorist fundraiser on the anniversary of the​ 9/11 attacks has​ been widely condemned⁢ as highly inappropriate ⁣and ​insensitive. This raises questions about Mangi’s judgment⁢ and whether he shares the⁢ organization’s controversial views.

Given the contentious nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it‌ is vital for judicial‌ nominees​ to demonstrate a commitment​ to impartiality and a fair understanding of the ‍complexities involved. The concern with Mangi’s association​ with the MBANY ​is‍ that it⁣ may undermine his ability to do so.

Supporters of Mangi argue‍ that his nomination should not be judged solely based on his⁣ association with ‍the MBANY. They⁤ point ⁤to his⁢ impressive legal career and qualifications, which include serving as a federal law clerk and​ handling a wide range of ​cases‌ as a private attorney.‌ They argue ⁢that his expertise and ⁢experience make⁢ him a highly qualified candidate for the federal appellate ‍court.

However, it is⁤ important to consider ​the potential implications of Mangi’s association with⁣ a group that has‍ been‍ widely criticized ‌for its controversial‌ views. The role of‌ a⁣ federal appellate court judge is to interpret the law and make​ decisions ​that​ adhere to ⁣the principles of justice ‍and equity. It is essential for the public to have confidence in⁢ the impartiality⁢ and‌ fairness of the‍ judiciary.

In light of ‌the concerns ⁢raised regarding Mangi’s affiliation with the MBANY, it is crucial for the Senate ‌to thoroughly evaluate his nomination. Senators⁣ have a⁣ responsibility to determine ‌whether ‍Mangi’s association with an organization known⁢ for its radical views could potentially bias his judicial decision-making.

The confirmation process for ⁢judicial⁣ nominees is a ⁣vital step in maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary. It is important ‍for the Senate to ‌carefully consider all aspects of Mangi’s background ⁤and assess whether he possesses the qualities‍ necessary to⁣ serve as‌ a federal appellate court judge.

While Mangi’s nomination has undoubtedly caused controversy, it‍ also presents an opportunity for a critical examination of ⁣the standards ‌and expectations for judicial nominees. How the Senate handles Mangi’s nomination will be a reflection of its commitment to upholding the ​principles of justice, impartiality, and fairness in the American ⁢judicial system.