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

It's been another good month on the bike. Despite forecast storms, I got my 34.2 miles in today, which gives me 15 rides and 513.2 miles for March. I've pedaled 1,471.7 miles so far in 2016, with many more to come. I saw a bobcat today, sitting on his haunches near the trail. The sky was dark and threatening throughout the ride, but no rain fell. I carried a rain jacket in case I needed it.

To the Editor:

Your editorial is unfair to Donald Trump. His ramblings about the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East—“I’m never going to rule anything out”—are merely his expression of the ageless “we will keep all options open,” which when used by one of your favorites, perhaps President Obama, is usually described as wise.

As for Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Japan and South Korea acquire their own nuclear weapons, it is a perfectly legitimate position to raise. Currently, we provide the nuclear umbrella for Japan, South Korea and dozens of other allies, which really obligates us to provide their conventional defense and risks our involvement in a nuclear confrontation. Thus, we end up meddling in all sorts of disputes, from those over rocks in the East China Sea to the borders of Eastern European countries.

As for revamping NATO, we should start asking Trump-like questions. Why are there still 60,000 American troops in Europe? Why do most our [sic] NATO partners spend about 1 to 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense while we spend 3.5 percent? This is not a good or necessary deal for America.

HARVEY M. SAPOLSKY

Cambridge, Mass.

I couldn't have said it better.

The people of North Carolina have had enough of progressive decadence and perversity and are standing up for decency and common sense. Thank God. A simpler and better statute would have said the following: It it a punishable offense to take a penis into a women's lavatory. As long as Bruce Jenner has a penis, he must use the men's lavatory.

Here.

Here.

The Miracle (1989). Not one of Queen's most popular songs, but interesting nonetheless (musically speaking).

William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal is getting right with Donald. By the way, there has been confusion among my blog readers about what this expression means. Here are two things it doesn't mean:

1. If you fail to support Donald Trump before he wins the Republican nomination, you will not be rewarded by him.
2. If you fail to support Donald Trump before he wins the Republican nomination, you will be punished by him.

Let's make America great again!

To the Editor:

When Democrats were in power, they made the rules. Judge Robert H. Bork was crucified when he was a Supreme Court nominee. If Justice Clarence Thomas had not confronted Senator Ted Kennedy and his fellow liberals during his confirmation with the word “lynching,” he would have received the Bork treatment.

Now that Republicans are in control, Democrats still want to call the shots. The Constitution does not have a time frame for confirmations, and this is chafing the Democrats.

FRANCIS ELLIOTT

Pineville, La.

Note from KBJ: Democrats are shameless. Since at least 1987, when they Borked Robert Bork, one of the most distinguished legal practitioners, scholars, and judges of the 20th century, they have done everything possible to prevent qualified "conservative" judges from ascending to the Supreme Court. What goes around comes around.

Note 2 from KBJ: Here is federal judge Richard A. Posner:

I knew Bob Bork, though not very well, and I am familiar with his writings and of course with the debacle of his rejection for the Supreme Court in 1987. What makes that debacle not only interesting, but also of lasting influence, is that Bork was probably the best qualified nominee for the Supreme Court in the last 71 years, which is to say since 1941, when Robert H. Jackson—attorney general, former solicitor general, confidant of FDR, brilliant lawyer—was nominated. Bork had extensive experience in private practice. He was a leading law professor—a distinguished antitrust scholar, also the principal inventor of the judicial philosophy of “originalism” or “original intent,” and the foremost conservative critic of the Supreme Court. He was a former solicitor general of distinction. He had served, also with distinction, for five years as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  (Italics added.)

I rest my case.