That was Judge Singhal responding to Adeel Mangi's letter withdrawing his nomination for federal judge.
It's hard to summarize Mangi's letter or Judge Singhal's response. Read both of them.
Here's a clip of Mangi's 4 page, single spaced letter: “When my nomination then came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was prepared to answer any questions about my qualifications, philosophy, or legal issues. I received none. Instead, I was asked questions about Israel, whether I supported Hamas, and whether I celebrated the anniversary of 9/11. Even more revealing, however, was the tone. The underlying premise appeared to be that because I am Muslim, surely I support terrorism and celebrate 9/11. ... [W]e have a fundamentally broken process for choosing federal judges. This is no longer a system for evaluating fitness for judicial office. It is now a channel for the raising of money based on performative McCarthyism before video cameras, and for the dissemination of dark-money-funded attacks that especially target minorities. Nominees pay the price and so too does our nation. Who will give up the rewards of private sector success for public service, if the added price is character assassination and wading through a Senatorial swamp like this one?”
And a portion of Judge Singhal's response: "Mr. Mangi clearly states that what he sets forth are his individual opinions, but the words he uses and the sentiment he conveys are seriously damaging to future qualified minority judicial candidates and require a response." More: "I wish Mr. Mangi had properly continued to fight for the appellate position and done so in a way that would inspire young people to follow his lead. Had he done so, I would have supported him as I did after his initial nomination. Instead, his actions show exactly why the advice and consent process and the separate roles of two branches of government to build the third branch are so vital. ... Truly, Mr. Mangi's letter reads like the defendant who tried to trick the court by accepting responsibility only to turn on his lawyer, the victim and the judge once he didn't like the sentence. It's not the way a federal judge would or should act."
Gotta love Judge Singhal. His path to the bench was not easy. Had he written a letter like Mangi's after his first few attempts, we would not have him as one of our judges. I'm thankful he didn't!
17 comments:
On the next episode of Judiciary Shore...
Yes, Mr. Mangi's letter was over the top, but since when do sitting judges respond to a failed nominee's letter? Are we sure our District Judges have enough work? Poor form.
Now judges aren’t allowed to write letters? The media tied the two together. Singhal’s letter clearly is written to help young lawyers who aspire to become judges as opposed to Mangi who thinks he’s entitled to everything.
https://sdfla.blogspot.com/2024/04/should-adeel-abdullah-mangi-be.html?m=1
Thank God Mangi was rejected. Should have never been nominated. His whiny, disingenuous letter only confirms it. Democrats need to cultivate progressive potential judge candidates who don't openly support Hamas and Defund the Police.
And there you prove his point.
Whys is Raj interjecting himself into this? And I have to vehemently disagree with 10:17 am. Asking a man or woman who prays to Mohammed if they celebrate 9/11 is outrageous and akin to asking an African American candidate if they eat watermelon or a Jewish candidate how much interest they charge when they lend money. It is sickening that this happened to an AMERICAN. It is judging someone based on their appearance, race, ethnicity or color of their skin. Not one senator who asked such horrible questions ever read, much less understood Dr King's wish that someday his children would be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Now I am going back to my sentencing memorandum today in which I ask the judge to apply Sharia law instead of the constitution. You idiots make me ill.
So his point is that he openly supports Hamas and Defund the Police but should have still been confirmed and since he wasn’t it’s Islamophobia?? That’s totally ridiculous particularly in light of other confirmed judges. Looking at it another way, Mangi’s claim doesn’t survive summary judgment. Thought Singhal’s letter was spot on.
Sigh. Don’t let facts disturb your uninformed diatribe.
Would have helped if he truthfully disclosed on his SJQ. Would have also helped if he, Whitehouse and Booker didn’t compare him to Singhal. Their “comparison” was way off. Don’t see how you can say Singhal interjected himself assuming that’s who “Raj” is. Read the April NYT article. They’ve been making the connection for eight months.
Mangi was anti American marxist
Nonsense. Impossible to reason with people who eat up propaganda.
Both letters kind of miss the point - advise and consent means a vote. Allowing a nomination to be held up by one senator who doesn't want to return a blue slip is bullshit. Have a vote. Either there are enough or not. Preventing a vote is a slimy way of preventing a nominee from moving on. If he was that bad, they would have held a vote and he would not have gone through.
The vote was prevented on Singhal, not on Mangi. As an appellate court nominee, blue slips weren’t in play for Mangi. As far as the point, it seems to me Singhal is saying work hard and try to get the position you want and if people are wrong about you, convince them they are wrong. Mangi on the other hand is saying he’s entitled and since he didn’t get it it was because of race or religion. Maybe the letters miss some points sure, but to the extent young lawyers should be encouraged to do well, fight hard and seek pathways to the bench, Singhal’s letter seems to me to be much more useful.
Finally, as to Rumpole’s comment, Singhal worked hard to make sure criminal defense lawyers have a place on the bench. He has also worked hard for other criminal defense lawyers who have become judges. I’m kind of surprised Rumpole puts Mangi’s letter—where he essentially gives up after one try—above what Singhal has done. We even have another criminal defense lawyer in the Middle District who was nominated by Bush, Obama and Trump! Was the failure of him to get confirmed earlier racist or religious based??
Mangi's nomination was voted through the Judiciary Committee and was waiting for a vote by the full Senate.
The Senate had a 51-49 Democratic majority. It was three Democratic senators who scuttled this nomination and those senators were not on the Judiciary Committee.
So, the Senate Democrats had the votes to confirm Mangi, but they chose not to do it. Mangi should put the blame where it belongs.
Adeel Mangi is only 47 years old? That's a baby by current Washington DC standards. Maybe he should run for a public office like US Congress in NJ. The state delegation badly needs some one of his intellectual level.
Okay, thanks for clarifying, that is helpful. But I still think they should vote. Let people know where everybody stands on these.
Why even comment at all? Entitlement is at an all time high in SDFL!
Post a Comment