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

Robert P. George, whom I once respected, disgraced himself by publicly opposing Donald Trump. Among other things, he said that "Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president of the United States." Some of us knew better. George must be kicking himself for not thinking things through. Here is his first mea culpa. He's got a long way to go before he re-earns my respect.

Van Halen (1978). I'll never forget my reaction when I first heard this song on the radio, in 1978. I was in disbelief. I had been a head-banger for four or five years and had been to many concerts. I loved bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Kiss, Queen, and Aerosmith. This song (and the album of which it was a part) blew my mind. It was unmistakably hard rock, but the harmonies were exquisite. The music was clean and pure, with awesome guitar riffs, explosive drumming, and thudding bass. Listening to the song now takes me back to 1978, when I was 21 years old. I'm glad I got to see Van Halen in concert, late though it was.

Tomorrow your creative side will shine forth with exceptional ideas.

Here is another of Scott Adams's blog posts. Adams is immensely interesting. I'm glad I found his blog many months ago. The thing I don't like about him is his self-promotion, but I suppose that's the cost of having access to his mind.

Here.

In one blog post, Scott Adams discusses both torture and "climate science."

Here.

Nancy Pelosi and Fake Tears Chuck Schumer held a rally at the steps of The Supreme Court and mic did not work (a mess)-just like Dem party!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2017

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Well, I’m afraid you’ll have to mark me down as . . . an adherent to the view that outcomes (ends) do not justify methods (means). Respectfully, it seems to me an assiduous focus on text, structure, and history is essential to the proper exercise of the judicial function. That, yes, judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views, always with an eye on the outcome, and engaged perhaps in some Benthamite calculation of pleasures and pains along the way. Though the critics are loud and the temptations to join them may be many, mark me down too as a believer that the traditional account of the judicial role Justice Scalia defended will endure.

(Neil M. Gorsuch, "Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of Justice Scalia," Case Western Reserve Law Review 66 [2016]: 905-20, at 908-9)