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

Here is a recent blog post by Scott Adams.

Here.

Here is Pat Buchanan's latest column. Pat has been right from the beginning.

To the Editor:

When Senate Republicans decided that President Obama should not be allowed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of his term, they claimed that blocking his nominee was necessary “to protect the will of the American people.”

The election revealed the will of the people, albeit a will thwarted by the Electoral College: A clear majority voted against Donald Trump.

After the Republican-controlled Senate nonetheless confirms Mr. Trump’s nominee to fill a vacancy that ought not to exist, it will be time to recognize that the court has lost its legitimacy as an independent judicial institution. The former Supreme Court will soon be better understood as a G.O.P. headquarters in black robes.

MITCHELL ZIMMERMAN

Palo Alto, Calif.

The writer is an attorney.

Note from KBJ: Don't give me this "We won the popular vote" business, creep. You knew the rules going in, and you lost. Suck it up. Did the Cleveland Indians protest the World Series on the ground that they scored just as many runs (27) as the Chicago Cubs? (I borrow this analogy from Rush Limbaugh, who used the 1960 World Series as his example. The Pittsburgh Pirates were vastly outscored by the New York Yankees, but the Pirates won four games to the Yankees' three, and that's how World Series are decided.) Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, fair and square, in accordance with the rules everyone knew about and accepted. Since it was a major plank of his platform that he would nominate law-abiding judges to the federal bench, including the Supreme Court, he has a mandate from the people to do so. If progressives don't like it, they can try to elect a president in 2020. Good luck!

Note 2 from KBJ: How many of Hillary Clinton's votes were cast by illegal aliens? It's far from "clear" that she got more popular votes than Donald Trump.

I knew from the beginning, and have often said (in this blog and elsewhere), that Barack Obama is a cosmopolitan. Now we know. He thinks nationalism is morally on a par with racism, sexism, and other forms of parochialism, which of course it is not. Progressives hate nation states because nation states interfere with the progressive dream of rule by elites.

Here.

Here are the 2016 Rookies of the Year.

Here is a blog for your consideration.

I have a confession to make. My support for Donald Trump throughout the primary season and during the general-election campaign was based on two considerations:

1. I wanted Hillary Clinton defeated.
2. I wanted law-abiding Supreme Court justices.

This doesn't mean that I'm indifferent to other matters, such as immigration, foreign policy, trade policy, health policy, and taxation. These things matter very much to me. It means that these two things were of paramount concern to me. Trump has now vanquished Clinton. I am confident that he will keep his promise to nominate law-abiding Supreme Court justices such as Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. If Trump comes through on the other matters, it's gravy.

Logic is concerned with the principles of valid inference; and it is certain that men made inferences and criticized the inferences of others long before the time of Aristotle. This is not enough in itself to justify us in saying that there must have been a beginning of logic before the time of Aristotle; for men may perform various activities correctly (e.g. talk English) without formulating the rules for those activities explicitly. But it is clear from what we find in Plato and Aristotle and other sources that Greek philosophers had begun to discuss the principles of valid inference before Aristotle wrote those works which came to be known as the Organon.

(William Kneale and Martha Kneale, The Development of Logic [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962; paperback ed., 1984], 1)