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

To the Editor:

When it comes to the Supreme Court, conservatives and liberals have fundamentally different values. Conservatives want the justices to apply the Constitution as it is written, not to read their own personal values and preferences into a “living Constitution.”

Conservatives do not want court decisions to be influenced by the laws and values of foreign nations. Rather, they want court decisions that faithfully follow our Constitution and laws as adopted through the American democratic process.

They do not want five people to be able to strike down protections for the unborn or for citizens whose consciences do not permit them to support contraception or same-sex unions. These issues should be left to the democratic process.

A majority of senators opposed holding hearings that might lead to Merrick Garland’s taking the late Antonin Scalia’s seat. There can be little doubt that if President Obama had nominated someone with the same judicial values as Justice Scalia, Republicans would have been enthusiastic to give the nominee hearings. Mr. Obama, as expected, nominated someone who would tilt the court in a direction that conservatives sincerely believe would be a wrong direction for the nation.

The Senate did not consent to Merrick Garland. There is nothing wrong with that. It cannot be twisted into the theft of a Supreme Court seat.

THOMAS S. DERETICH

Boston

Note from KBJ: The day the Democrats refused to confirm Robert Bork, they lost the ability to criticize anything, ever, with regard to Supreme Court appointments.

I want to know how this professor enforces his rule. Suppose a student uses a cellphone, tablet, or laptop computer in class and refuses to put it away. What can I do? Try to force the student to leave the room? Stop lecturing until he or she puts the device away? Leave the room? Give the student a lower (or failing) grade?

Here. And here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Trumps Hurry to Unscramble Business Ties” (front page, Dec. 25): All the moves discussed by the Trumps to resolve their potential conflicts of interest add up to sacrificing pawns to protect the king(dom)—the Trump Organization.

The Constitution’s Emoluments Clause is unambiguous. It forbids an American president from accepting anything of value from a foreign entity, without congressional consent, because that would open the door to bribery or extortion.

The only way for President-elect Donald Trump to cure this problem would be an arms-length sale by a public trustee, not piecemeal judgments after Jan. 20 about the thousands of possible winks and nods between foreign leaders and the new administration.

Here come the post hoc rationalizations. Unfair to the family? It would probably pocket a cool $3 billion-plus. Voters don’t care? They will after the first scandal, but even if they don’t, popular opinion doesn’t amend the Constitution; only amendments can.

Undoable because of size? Mr. Trump chose to put himself in this situation and cannot now act aggrieved, nor is there a too-big-to-sell exemption in the Constitution; if anything, the larger the potential for conflict, the more urgent a sell-off.

Because of a lifetime habit of cutting corners while pursuing profit, Mr. Trump might assume that he could again just brazen his way through this situation. But the White House is not Trump Tower. Merging public office and self-enrichment would be corrupt, unprecedented, unconstitutional and an ongoing impeachable offense.

LAURENCE TRIBE

MARK GREEN

Cambridge, Mass.

Mr. Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Mr. Green, New York City’s first public advocate, is the author of “Bright, Infinite Future: A Generational Memoir on the Progressive Rise.”

Note from KBJ: There is no evidence that Donald Trump violated the Constitution. This letter is nothing more (or less) than hatred of the successful. I doubt that either Laurence Tribe or Mark Green could run a profitable lemonade stand. By the way, where were these two men when Hillary Clinton was actually accepting bribes from foreign countries?

How crazy is the weather in North Texas? During December 2016, we had official high temperatures in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. We almost had a high in the 20s. (One day it was 30º.) The average high temperature for the month was 59.0º, which is far from our record.

This clinches it. Erick Erickson is batshit crazy.

Today's ride of 35.1 miles gives me 6,288.0 miles for the year, which breaks my all-time record of 6,205.9 miles, set in 1990. I rode 182 times in 366 days this year, which is roughly every other day. (Had I known I was so close to 183, I'd have ridden an extra day.) I averaged 17.18 miles per day, which makes my average week 120.2 miles. I'm pretty sure I rode more miles this year than I drove my car. I rode on a day when the official high temperature was 38º Fahrenheit and on a day when the official high temperature was 107º Fahrenheit, and everything in between. I rode in gale-force wind and in calm conditions. I rode many times in the rain and occasionally when I was sick with sinusitis or bronchitis. I've been a veritable riding machine for the past four years. From 2013 to 2016, inclusive, I pedaled 19,314.7 miles. Since taking up cycling in August 1981, as a 24-year-old, I've pedaled 90,749.1 miles. Is it possible both to love something and to be addicted to it? It must be, because I still love cycling after more than 35 years and can't imagine living without it. (Click the image to enlarge it.)

Addendum: Here is my blog post of a year ago today, in which I set forth my goals for 2016. I'll set forth my goals for 2017 in a day or so. My next ride is Tuesday.

Here.