Ted Cruz makes Democrat senator regret attacking his character over controversial nominee: 'A new low for this committee'
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tore into Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Thursday for accusing him of opposing a federal judicial nominee on the basis of religion.
President Joe Biden has nominated Adeel Abdullah Mangi to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If his controversial nomination succeeds, he would become the highest-ranking Muslim on the federal judiciary.
Mangi's nomination is not controversial because of his faith. Rather, Mangi served on the advisory board of Rutgers Law School's controversial Center for Security, Race and Rights from 2019 to 2023. The organization, according to Cruz, has a history of anti-Semitism and deep anti-Israel sentiment and has, in the past, hosted at least one speaker who was criminally convicted of supporting the Palestine Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization.
At his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Mangi insisted he had no role in the controversial decisions and associations of CSRR.
Prior to the committee voting on Mangi's nomination, Cruz spent 10 minutes reminding his Senate colleagues of the concerns about Mangi and his association with the CSRR.
But instead of responding to the substance of those concerns, Durbin insulted Cruz.
"What is it about Adeel Mangi that attracts such criticism? We know what the starting point is. He would be the first Muslim-American to be appointed to serve on the circuit bench," Durbin said.
"And we know because of that, he is a target. ... So what is this man? And why should we be concerned? You've just heard a presentation, a suggestion that because of his background, he is likely to be either anti-Semitic or a terrorist because he's a Muslim-American."
Cruz was not happy with Durbin's accusation that opposition to Mangi's nomination is because of his Muslim faith.
"You have just impugned my character by making a false accusation, and I will say it is disgraceful!" Cruz chided. "Did you respond to any of the substance of what I said? No! You just attacked me and called me a bigot, and you responded by stating deliberate falsehoods."
And when Durbin tried to interrupt him, Cruz shut him down.
"Excuse me, I have a right to defend myself when you impugn my character in a way that is a new low for this committee," he said. "You did not dispute any of the facts I said about the organization that he was an adviser of, he was a donor of, he raised money for."
Later, Durbin said that Mangi had "no connection" to the CSRR, which lit another fire under Cruz.
"Did you just say he had no connection with this organization? Is that seriously what you said in this hearing?" Cruz interjected. "He was on the board of advisers, he was a donor and raised money for it, but you just said he has no connection with them?"
"See? You twist this situation," Durbin accused.
When Cruz followed up by asking Durbin if he really believes that Mangi had "no connection" to the CSRR, Durbin refused to answer.
"OK, you're refusing to answer because it's obviously indefensible and false," Cruz said.
After the tense moment, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is controlled by Democrats, advanced Mangi's nomination to the full Senate by a vote of 11-10.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
GOP senator schools Biden judicial nominee for defending religious discrimination: 'Don't make me do this'
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) dressed down a Biden judicial nominee on Wednesday for defending COVID-19 pandemic policies that discriminated against religious liberty.
What is the background?
Before serving on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Judge Loren AliKhan served Washington, D.C., as its solicitor general. So when Capitol Hill Baptist Church sued D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in 2020 for religious discrimination — arguing that Bowser kept church gatherings shut down to protect public health while encouraging mass protests for racial justice — AliKhan defended the city in court.
Ultimately, a federal judge ruled in Capitol Hill Baptist's favor, finding the city was violating the church's rights. The city did not appeal, essentially admitting defeat.
What happened with Hawley?
On Wednesday, Hawley confronted AliKhan — a federal district court nominee — about her defense of Bowser's discriminatory policies. But it was clear AliKhan did not want to broach the case.
The Republican senator asked AliKhan why she lost the case in court. She responded by repeatedly invoking what Hawley condemned as "legalese." Specifically, AliKhan said she lost the case because the court determined that "the restrictions did not meet the standard of strict scrutiny," which really means the D.C. government could not prove a compelling state interest for the restrictions.
"Meaning they were unconstitutional?" Hawley, knowing the answer, asked.
"Meaning that they did not survive strict scrutiny and it’s a matter of public record that the District of Columbia did not appeal that decision," she responded.
"Why, why, why were they struck down?" the senator pressed. "Why were the restrictions that you defended struck down as discriminatory?"
"Because they did not satisfy—" AliKhan began when Hawley interjected.
"Why didn't they?" he asked again.
"The court concluded that there were restrictions that were not neutral of general applicability—" she tried to say when Hawley interrupted again.
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah that's legalese. Why didn't they? Why didn't they on the facts? You know the facts, you're a good lawyer. Why'd you lose?" he asked again.
"We lost because applying the strict-scrutiny test, the court concluded that the restrictions were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest," AliKhan admitted.
"Because?" Hawley pressed again.
Hawley's insistence in trying to get AliKhan to say for herself in layman's terms why she lost the case left her without words. Hawley finally answered the question himself.
"Oh, come on, Judge, don't make me do this. Do you want me to go through it for you? You lost this because Mayor Bowser was going to mass protests, herself personally, with thousands of people," Hawley explained. "At the same time she was doing that, she was prohibiting churches, religious people, from gathering socially-distanced outside, wearing masks, and the district court said, 'You can't do that, that's discrimination.'"
Sen. Hawley Grills Biden Judicial Nominee Who Defended D.C. Church Closures During COVID www.youtube.com
After some back-and-forth, Hawley turned to a specific argument that AliKhan made in defending D.C.'s lockdown policies.
"Why did you argue that religious services, religious people pose a greater risk of an infection than people gathered to argue for defunding the police?" he asked.
"I was representing my client," she excused. "The mayor, in consulting epidemiologists, had issued orders that she thought were going to protect public health. It was my role to defend those."
"But why'd you make that argument?" Hawley pressed.
"My understanding was the nature of singing and other things epidemiologists thought could transmit COVID at a higher rate," AliKhan said.
But Hawley pointed out that AliKhan included no "scientific evidence" in her argument. She excused herself by claiming "those were fast-moving cases."
"That's not what the district court said," Hawley shot back. "The district court said that your client engaged in and you defended discrimination on the basis of religious belief, that you offered no scientific evidence for, that you pressed these arguments over and over and over without any foundation."
Hawley told AliKhan that he would not support her nomination because she defended her argument in the hearing instead of owning up to the discriminatory premise on which it was built.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
Hawley Leaves Anti-Gun Judicial Nominee STUNNED Using History To Make Her Look Stupid