Challenging Adeel Mangi Goes Beyond ‘Islamophobia’ Concerns

Imagine a scenario where a Republican nominee’s past allegiance to questionable organizations raises eyebrows. Would Democrats standby silently if this individual, considered for a lifetime judicial appointment, had contributed to and advised an antisemitic entity? What if connections to radicals and previous omissions to the Senate further tainted their record?

Introducing you to Adeel Mangi, President Joe Biden’s choice for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. His background is​ stirring up a storm, with Democrats voicing their concerns. In a New York Times column, Lydia Polgreen presented a defense amidst claims ​of “Islamophobia,” stirring the pot of political discord.

Once, Christopher Hitchens sharply criticized the⁣ term “Islamophobia,” suggesting it was a label used⁢ to muzzle legitimate concerns. Today, similar accusations are hurled when scrutinizing the affiliations of a Muslim public figure.

Polgreen paints Mangi as the epitome of the American dream:‍ a brilliant legal mind climbing from modest beginnings to the legal elite. However, Mangi’s story has controversial ​chapters.

“Do ‍you condemn the atrocities of Hamas terrorists?” Senator Ted Cruz asked Mangi,⁤ insinuating a connection simply on the basis of his faith, shared with billions globally.

Yet, here lies the rub – Mangi’s financial contributions ​and advisory roles ⁤with troubling groups are‍ facts,⁣ not mere allegations.‌ One such group at Rutgers has⁣ a history of hosting speakers ⁣with contentious ⁤views on Israel⁣ and Jewish people.

This same group, while under Mangi’s advisory,​ celebrated events with radical figures, subtly condoning extremist ideologies.

Polgreen might see these‌ associations as benign intellectual exercises. Yet, for senators tasked with‍ vetting judicial nominees, these are red flags questioning the suitability‌ of Mangi for the​ bench.

If Mangi’s involvement with these groups was without full awareness, it casts doubt on his judgement for federal duties.

Furthermore, not disclosed to the Senate was Mangi’s link to a radical-left ​organization glorifying convicted murderers ‌as “freedom fighters.” Such omissions and alliances deserve ⁣scrutiny.

Contrast‌ this with the unjust targeting of Clarence Thomas over personal associations – it seems there’s a double standard at play.

President Biden seeks a nominee that reflects diversity. Yet,​ should diversity include troubling past alliances? Is ‌it ​not “Islamophobic” to imply Mangi represents the standard among Muslim candidates?