Politically, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had nothing to gain -- and much to lose -- by appointing Sohail Mohammed to the state's Superior Court. Christie, laudably, did it anyway.

Mohammed is an India-born Muslim. Christie, often mentioned as a GOP presidential candidate, now finds himself assailed by conservative Islamophobes for elevating the 47-year-old to the bench. They argue he will impose Muslim religious law, or Sharia law, from the bench. They also claim his defense of Muslims arrested in the wake of 9/11 make his loyalties suspect.

Mohammed's clients were among the more than 1,000 Muslim innocents rounded up as the FBI hunted terrorists after the attack. Even had they been guilty, representing people accused of crimes is what lawyers do. Sohail Mohammed, far from being the type of America-hating extremist conservatives fear, is known for building bridges between law enforcement and the Muslim community.

Christie, with characteristic gusto, said, "It's just crazy, and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background. I'm happy that he's willing to serve after all this baloney."

Well said, governor.

To those who oppose Mohammed's appointment, it must be asked: If you're against judges whose religion includes a set of laws, who should occupy our bench? You've not, in the past, been outspoken in your support of atheist jurists. hN

SUBSCRIBE

Unlimited Digital AccessOnly 25¢for 6 months

ACT NOWSALE ENDS SOON | CANCEL ANYTIME