• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Marco Rubio, Tim Scott Sabotage Superb Conservative, Ryan Bounds


by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Despite their razor-thin numerical advantage over Democrats, Senate Republicans were able to put together a long and impressive winning streak in confirming President Trump’s court of appeals nominees. That winning streak came to an ignominious end today. Not because Sen. Susan Collins or Sen. Lisa Murkowski balked at a conservative nominee. But because Sens. Tim Scott and Marco Rubio ambushed a superb conservative.

Their victim, Ryan Bounds, is an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Oregon. He has served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff in the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department and as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

Bounds has extensive appellate court experience. He served in the Appellate Unit as a Special Assistant at the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office, briefing and arguing criminal appeals before the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals. He also briefed and argued cases in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits while serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy at the DOJ. In addition, he clerked on the court to which he was nominated — the Ninth Circuit

Bounds is a solid conservative. At Yale, he was vice president of the law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society. The judge for whom he clerked, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, is a leading conservative jurist. Bounds is just the kind of highly qualified conservative the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit needs.

So why did Scott and Rubio sink his nomination? They did so because Scott claimed he didn’t have enough information to vote “yes,” and Rubio said he would stand with his under-informed colleague. Lacking the votes needed to confirm, Majority Leader McConnell announced that the nomination was withdrawn (I’m told Bounds requested this).

Scott’s doubts about Bounds apparently are based on some of his writings as an undergraduate at Stanford. The young Bounds had snarky things* to say about multiculturalism, as conceived by “some of the more strident racial factions of the student body.”

Bounds made these comments 25 years (or so) ago. He has apologized for their tone.

Dinging a nominee based on such college writings is ridiculous. The Wall Street Journal’s editors put it mildly when they say, “these are flimsy and unfair grounds to defeat a nominee.”

What’s more, Bounds’ writings have been part of the debate over his nomination for months. In May, liberal Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to beat Bounds up with them.

If Scott had concerns about the writings, he should have spoken to Bounds about them or obtained more information well before the Senate was about to vote. But Scott apparently was asleep at the switch. Thus, months of effort to confirm this nominee have gone up in smoke — time that could have been used to confirm other nominees if Scott truly viewed Bounds’ ancient snark as a deal breaker.

What really gets me is that Scott and Rubio apparently voted for cloture — i.e., to end debate on Bounds and bring his nomination to a vote. As I understand it, once cloture is invoked, there must be a vote. Either that, or the nomination must be withdrawn.

Thus, there was no way to supply Scott with the information he claimed he needed. It was too late for that. McConnell had to fish or cut bait, and Scott wouldn’t let him fish — not successfully, at any rate.

This was a truly pathetic performance by the South Carolina Senator and his Florida colleague — one with potential adverse consequences for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

The Democrats’ main strategy for blocking Kavanaugh is to demand every piece of paper Kavanaugh has ever written as an adult and every paper he laid his hands on as the person in charge of paper flow at the Bush White House. This means millions of pages. The Dems will then demand months to review the documents. By the time they are all produced and reviewed, it will be 2019, and a new Senate will be in place. That’s the plan.

Republicans will counter that there is no need to review Kavanaugh’s old papers. They will say, quite rightly, that the Democrats are just stalling.

But now we have two conservative Republican Senators on record that the writings of a nominee when he was in college — not even in law school — can provide the basis for nixing the nominee.

The point isn’t lost on Sen. Schumer. His spokesman wasted no time declaring:

A lower-court nominee’s college writings are relevant, but a Supreme Court nominee’s White House writings aren’t? I don’t think so.

Ironically, Senators Collins, Murkowski, Flake, and Corker have all expressed skepticismabout the scope of the Democrats’ demands for Kavanaugh’s documents. Corker said that asking for all of Kavanaugh’s paperwork “feels dilatory to me.” Flake said that demanding all 1 million-plus pages seemed excessive and that the request “needs to be reasonable.”

But now Senators Scott and Rubio, both considered to the right of the four Senators mentioned above, have provided fuel for the obstructionist Democrats.

That plus sinking a well-qualified conservative nominee for a court that desperately needs some. It adds up to a very bad day’s work.

* You can read Bounds comments in this Washington Post article. Here is what I take to be the most relevant part of it:

In one of his Stanford articles, Bounds described a phenomenon he called “race-think,” in which “multiculturalistas” and ethnic minorities bonded together to form groups of “racial purity” that he claimed ended up creating more division.

“During my years in our Multicultural Garden of Eden,” he wrote, “I have often marveled at the odd strategies that some of the more strident racial factions of the student body employ in their attempts to ‘heighten consciousness,’ ‘build tolerance,’ ‘promote diversity’ and otherwise convince us to partake of that fruit which promises to open our eyes to a PC version of the knowledge of good and evil. I am mystified because these tactics seem always to contribute more to restricting consciousness, aggravating intolerance and pigeonholing cultural identities than many a Nazi bookburning.”

(Emphasis added)

The reference to Nazi bookburning is over-the-top and merited an apology. But does Scott seriously believe that a writing like this by a college student should bar the author from the judiciary decades later? Does Rubio?

I sure hope not.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: