Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

90125 (1983). Breathtaking.

Click to enlarge. This is insane. Elvis Andrus of the Texas Rangers is by far the best shortstop in the American League.

Here.

Here.

Here is Kurt Schlichter's latest column.

The Supreme Court of the United States slapped down the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court ruled, 9-0, that President Trump may bar entry, on a temporary basis, to any "foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." According to the six-member majority, "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national." The Court added that "The interest in preserving national security is 'an urgent objective of the highest order.' " To prevent shenanigans, the Court specified that it is not a "bona fide relationship" for "a nonprofit group [e.g., the Catholic Church] devoted to immigration issues . . . to contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have lifted the temporary restraining order with regard to all parties, not just to those who lack a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." It's heartening to see Justice Gorsuch agreeing with Justice Thomas. I am praying for one more Gorsuch from President Trump.

It's a great day for law and order. It's a very bad day for the politicized judges on the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and for the partisan political hacks who call themselves law professors. The case will be heard on its merits in October. I expect the Court to rule by at least 5-4 that the entire executive order comports with the Constitution. All of the justices have already ruled, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Government (i.e., President Trump) "is likely to succeed on the merits." Will the judges on the Fourth and Ninth Circuits be chastened by this rebuke? Of course not. They're ideologues first and judges second, which is to say that they're not judges at all.

Addendum: Law professor Jonathan Turley nails it.

To the editor:

Economist Robert Pollin makes bold claims to support the single-payer Healthy California Act. He has calculated the estimated cost based on assumptions of replacing health insurance with government-managed insurance, improved administrative costs, discouraging unnecessary treatments, lowering physician and drug costs and increasing preventive care. (“Single-payer healthcare for California is, in fact, very doable,” Opinion, June 21)

All of these goals are laudable, but they are easier said than done.

Here’s what happens in the trenches: Government-managed healthcare is inefficient, denial of care is frequent, managed-care cost has steadily risen, physician fees remain stagnant, lowering drug costs is complex, and the cost of treating chronic illness is enormous.

Increasing taxes to pay for this program without first changing the mindset of the bureaucrats and inefficient government systems does not make sense. Perhaps Pollin should help implement single payer in his home state of Massachusetts before exporting it.

Jacob Korula, MD, Arcadia

Note from KBJ: If you like the DMV, you'll love single-payer health insurance.

Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I found Autie on the street four years ago today (click to enlarge):

 Here he is this afternoon:

I call him the Impossible Dog.

Classical Gas (1987). Thirty years gone.