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

Here.

To the Editor:

Maybe, just maybe, a long, blue line of police officers from all over the United States descending on Washington would convince our Congress of the urgent need to establish some controls on the sale of assault weapons.

JOEL H. COHEN

Staten Island

Note from KBJ: Yes, because that would have prevented the police killings in Dallas. (I'm being sarcastic.) It should be a necessary condition for advocating gun control that the specific control being advocated would have prevented the incident in question. If it wouldn't have, then you're merely exploiting the situation to take firearms from law-abiding citizens. Is there any reason to believe that regulating or prohibiting the sale of assault weapons (as the letter writer suggests) would have prevented these police killings? (That's a rhetorical question.) Don't you think the thugs who assassinated the officers would have found a way to acquire such weapons, even if they were illegal? And even if they couldn't acquire assault weapons, wouldn't they have found another way to kill, as by using bombs or deer rifles? I am sick to death of opportunistic gun-control demands.

Here.

Here.

At least two well-known pundits, Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer, have compared FBI Director James Comey to Chief Justice John Roberts. Both, it is said, were reluctant to interfere with political processes. Roberts didn't want to overturn the duly enacted legislation known as ObamaCare; Comey didn't want to thwart the ambitions of the first female nominee for president. The implication is that both of these acts were unprincipled.

The analogy is weak. Roberts was acting in accordance with a respectable judicial philosophy. I can't think of anything similar in the case of Comey. Roberts is a proponent of what might be called "judicial modesty." This means a number of things. It means, first, that a case should be resolved on the narrowest possible grounds. For example, if a case can be resolved by interpreting a statute rather than by invoking the Constitution, it should be. It also means that a judge should show deference to the legislature. This creates a presumption of constitutionality. Unless and until it is shown that a statute is unconstitutional, it is assumed to be constitutional. One basis for judicial deference is that unpopular statutes can be repealed or amended. If the Supreme Court upholds a statute, the people, acting through the political process, can take action to correct what they believe to be an erroneous, misguided, or impolitic decision.

My point is not to defend judicial modesty (though I confess to finding it an attractive judicial philosophy), but to show that Chief Justice Roberts was acting on principle. I don't see any principle in the case of FBI Director Comey. Hillary Clinton obviously violated the law, and yet Comey recommended against prosecution. The only explanation of this decision is a desire, on Comey's part, not to interfere with the political process (or, more specifically, not to thwart the ambitions of the first female nominee for president). That's not a principle; it's closer to cowardice. Because there is a relevant difference between the actions of Roberts and Comey, Limbaugh and Krauthammer should stop assimilating the two cases. Leave Roberts alone.

John Sullivan sent a link to this. Why do we even call it "higher education"? It's higher indoctrination.

Do you "camp out" in the left (fast) lane? I assume nobody will admit to doing so. Instead, tell me how you feel about other people doing it. If you've had any interesting incidents, do tell all.

Tarkus (1971). R.I.P., Keith Emerson (1944-2016).

The inimitable, irrepressible, irreverent Red Foreman.

One of my peeves is the expression "lead a life," as in "I lead my life as I see fit." What's wrong with "I live as I see fit"? Another peeve is the related "live a life," as in "I live my life as I see fit." What else do you do with a life except live it? Sloppy writing reflects sloppy thinking.