Who will stand up to the ‘crazies’ now?

In 2011, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie nominated Sohail Mohammed for a seat on the state’s Superior Court. An immigrant from India, Mohammed had helped the FBI improve relations with the Muslim community after the 9/11 attacks. But he had also criticized the targeting of Muslims and other Middle Easterners by law enforcement, which raised eyebrows in some Republican quarters.

One critic charged that Mohammed was a “longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists.” Another said that Christie was “in bed with the enemy,” and that nominating Mohammed had placed New Jersey on a path “toward becoming the Sharia state.”

Christie wasn’t having it. “This Sharia law business is crap,” he told a news conference. “It’s just crazy, and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”

Mohammed was confirmed for the bench, but the “crazies” are still here. This time, they’re targeting a man who would become the first Muslim judge on a federal appeals court. And it looks like they’re going to win.

I’m talking about New Jersey attorney Adeel Mangi, whom President Joe Biden nominated for the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Once again, Republicans are suggesting that a Muslim judicial candidate is somehow soft on terrorism. But nobody in the GOP is courageous enough to call them out, as Christie did a decade ago.

At Mangi’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in December, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) noted that Mangi had given money to the Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR) at Rutgers University, which has hosted speakers who have praised the Palestinian intifada against Israel. Cruz went on to ask Mangi if he supported Hamas; not to be outdone, Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) asked Mangi if he celebrated the 9/11 attacks.

That’s what used to be called guilt by association. Your name has been linked to a controversial organization. So surely you must support everything the organization has ever said or done.

In reply, Mangi fully condemned the Oct. 7 Hamas assault on Israel as well as the 9/11 attacks. “I don’t think anyone can feel more strongly about what happened on 9/11 than someone who was there,” Mangi said, noting that he had been in New York on that day. “I will condemn, without equivocation, any terrorism, any terrorist, any act of terrorism, or any defense of any act of terrorism.”

You would think that would be enough. But you would be wrong because the Islamophobes are in charge. Mangi is a Muslim, so he must prove that he doesn’t sympathize with terrorists. And nothing he says is going to convince anyone who’s blinded by bias.

Ditto for the scurrilous charge of antisemitism, which also got bandied about during his confirmation hearing. After claiming — without evidence — that the CSRR was “a mouthpiece for Hamas,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) asked whether Mangi had ever evinced any concern for “Jewish students” at Rutgers.

Never mind that the Anti-Defamation League and several other Jewish organizations expressed their support for Mangi, and condemned the GOP senators’ insinuations of antisemitism. “Mr. Mangi was subjected to aggressive questioning unrelated to his professional expertise or qualifications,” the ADL declared.

And if you have any doubt about those qualifications, take a quick look at his biography published by the corporate law firm where he works. (Full disclosure: My brother, who is a criminal court judge in New York, worked for the same firm many years ago.) Mangi has degrees from Oxford and Harvard. He has won cases involving theft of trade secrets, consumer protection, and false advertising. A litigation magazine recently named him one of the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers” in the United States.

“These claims about my positions are categorically false, misinformed, and mistaken.”

But he also successfully fought efforts by two New Jersey communities to prevent the construction of mosques. He has served on the board of directors of the Muslim Bar Association and Muslims for Progressive Values. Clearly, he’s both an accomplished attorney and a proud representative of his religion.

That’s what his Republican critics can’t tolerate. They will never accept someone who is so prominently associated with Islam.

Even some Democrats are running scared. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D., Nev.) said last Tuesday that she would oppose Mangi’s nomination. She cited Mangi’s involvement with the Alliance of Families for Justice, which provides legal aid and counseling to families of incarcerated people.

But it also sponsored a fellowship named after the late militant Kathy Boudin — who served jail time for her role in the murder of a police officer — and demanded the release of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

More guilt by association. As Mangi emphasized in a letter released last week, he never met Boudin and had no knowledge of the fellowship named after her. Nor has he ever expressed support for people who engage in violence against police, which he called “horrific and indefensible.”

“These claims about my positions are categorically false, misinformed, and mistaken,” Mangi wrote, calling on his critics “to retract their claims now that the facts are clear.”

Don’t hold your breath for that. When Muslims are being judged in the realm of public opinion, it often seems as if the facts don’t count.

Mohammed faced similarly baseless accusations in 2011 from GOP lawmakers in New Jersey, who asked him to define the word jihad and to say whether he had ever objected to the term “Islamo terrorist.”

Christie wasn’t afraid to call that what it was: bigotry, plain and simple. “They are criticizing him because he is Muslim American,” Christie said. Too bad nobody in the Republican Party has the guts to say that now.