Does the Senate now have the formula it needs to never again confirm another Clarence Thomas? By that I mean another constitutionalist justice? Or for that matter, another lower court originalist? Could be.
The key appears now to simply look back, as far as one has to, at a nominee’s record in order to find something controversial and “outside the mainstream.” And by controversial and outside the mainstream, I mean any perceived transgression that could cause consternation among the new snowflake class of legislator.
The seminal case was just recently decided by the Senate. Upon hearing of a new development, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, pulled the nomination of Ryan Bounds for a position on the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination by Trump dates back almost a year now – from September, 2017.
Now you would naturally conclude that the democrats are up to their old tricks, using labels such racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. to describe Bounds. You’d be half right.
This time it was a pair of “Republicans” who did the left’s dirty work. These two newly minted social justice warriors are Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
Scott and Rubio teamed up to oppose Bounds on the grounds of his “racial charged” writings while he was in college. Given the razor-thin margins in the Senate, McConnell decided to just pull the vote rather than have it proceed to defeat.
Now Bounds is out, as is an opportunity to appoint a true constitutionalist to the most liberal federal court in the nation. Good job Senators.
So what did Bounds write that was so egregious to cause Scott and Rubio to flip?
Well, a quarter century ago, Ryan Bounds was an undergraduate at Stanford University, well before he attended Yale law school. The young college student wrote a few “controversial” op-eds, that these two groups pounced on.
AFJ quotes Bounds to have written “critically about ‘strident racial factions in the student body’ and their work to ‘build tolerance’ and ‘promote diversity.’ He went on to claim that the efforts of these students ‘seem always to contribute more to restricting consciousness, aggravating intolerance, and pigeonholing cultural identities than many a Nazi bookburning.’”
Okay, maybe the Nazi reference was over the top, but he was 19 or 20 years old. And how is that any worse than what present day dems call Trump and Republicans?
Bounds accused campus “race-thinkers” of denigrating blacks as “oreos,” “Uncle Toms” or “sell-outs” if they rejected “victimhood status.”
He evidently “wrote condescendingly and dismissively about sexual assault on campus and argued that to identify and punish alleged perpetrators, the university should maintain the ironclad ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard of proof used by law enforcement.
AFJ cited other writings, all denigrating what we know now as leftist group-think. And although some of what he wrote could have been softened a bit, there wasn’t anything untrue about it.
Everything penned by Bounds is demonstrably evident on most college campuses today, from purposeful racial division, to the insults hurled at black conservatives, to the hyper-sensitivity of college administrators to cries of rape on campus – often condemning and ruining innocent young men’s lives on the basis of a mere charge.
For this, Scott and Rubio decided against his confirmation. The claim was that Bounds did not originally divulge this damning information – basically accusing him of lying.
Unfortunately Scott didn’t look at the request made to Bounds pertaining to his past writings. He was specifically asked to disclose everything from law school forward – which he did. As the “controversial” articles were done prior to law school, he was not required to release them.
They were only found by opposition research done by the leftists groups.
So thanks to our newest pair of social justice warriors, Tim Scott and Marco Rubio, we’ve lost the opportunity to seat another Clarence Thomas originalist to help balance out the radicals on the Ninth Circuit.
Good work gentleman.