Two Indian-Americans lead campaign against trump nominee Neomi Rao
Washington, Feb 5: Two leading Indian-American women have led the Democratic party's move to oppose the nomination of fellow community legal luminary Neomi Rao for the prestigious and powerful US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, citing her "excuses" for sexual assault and "hostility" to the civil and human rights as reasons.
US President Donald Trump had announced Rao's nomination in November while celebrating Diwali at the White House. Trump had nominated her in place of Justice Brett Kavanaugh who in October was sworn in as the Supreme Court judge.
"Neomi Rao made excuses for sexual assault, blocked women's access to reproductive health and would allow health care providers to deny care to LGBTQ patients," said Indian-American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.
"This is simply not appropriate for someone who wishes to serve on a federal bench," said Jayapal, the first Indian-American woman ever elected to the House of Representatives.
Senate Judiciary Committee "should reject" Rao, she said on Monday.
Now considered as among the leading Democratic lawmakers, Jayapal was recently re-elected for her second consecutive term to the US House of Representatives.
If confirmed by the United States Senate, Rao, 45, would be the second Indian-American after Sree Srinivasan in this powerful court, which is considered a step below the US Supreme court.
However, unlike the nomination process of Srinivasan, wherein the entire Indian American community was united and campaigned aggressively for his confirmation, Indian-Americans are a bitterly divided lot this time.
"Her controversial writings set the stage for the damage she has done as President Trump's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where she has led the Trump administration's aggressive regulatory agenda to undermine civil rights and public protections," said Vanita Gupta, a leading Indian-American legal luminary.
"Rao's demonstrated hostility to the civil and human rights of all should disqualify her from a lifetime appointment on the federal judiciary. We urge all senators to reject her nomination," Gupta said in a strongly worded statement.
She alleged that Rao had already proven that she is incapable of serving as a fair and impartial judge on the federal bench.
"Her past is her prologue," said Gupta, who currently is president and the CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Rao is slated to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
She is expected to face tough questions from the Democratic members of the Senate judiciary Committee including the Indian-origin Senator Kamala Harris.
The White House did not immediately respond to questions on the allegations against Rao.
In her current role, Rao has played a key role in regulatory reform, which according to the White House saved American families and businesses USD 23 billion in fiscal year 2018 by getting rid of unduly burdensome and unnecessary regulation.
Prior to her service as OIRA Administrator, Rao was a professor of structural constitutional law, administrative law, and legislation and statutory interpretation at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
She founded the Law School's Center for the Study of the Administrative State and focused her scholarship on the political and constitutional accountability of administrative agencies and the role of Congress.
She has served in all three branches of government including Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to former President George W Bush.
In between government service, Rao practised in the London office of Clifford Chance LLP, specialising in international law and commercial arbitration.
"Neomi Rao, who was just nominated to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit court, has no business being anywhere near the federal bench," said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
After graduation from law school, Rao clerked for Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for Justice Clarence Thomas on the United States Supreme Court.
She received her B A from Yale University and her JD from the University of Chicago.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
