Reply to UCLA Law School Professor's Op-Ed on Trump's SCOTUS Pick

(Note: In the July 9, 2018 Los Angeles Times was an Op-Ed by UCLA Law School Professor Jon D. Michaels. The writing below was my email to him commenting on his article. His article, "A case for bold dissent," anticipated Trump's not yet named nominee being approved by the Senate, and called for the four left-wing Justices to be more vigorous in their dissents (also anticipating more 5-4 decisions). Professor Michaels opined that President Trump's pick would be an "arch-conservative." For the Left, all conservatives are now either "arch-conservatives" or "radical conservatives" or "extremists." It is not necessary to have read the Op-Ed to follow this post.)

I do take issue with a couple of your points. To the Left, every conservative is an "arch conservative." After all, before knowing the pick you dubbed him/her to be an "arch conservative." Furthermore, even with five of these "arch conservatives" on the court, we both know that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is not likely. Does C.J. Roberts really strike you as the type of Justice to overturn a 45 year old precedent?

(This paragraph was added by me the next morning as a P.S.) Yes, Janus overturned a 1977 precedent (Abood). However, I see a significant difference between not compelling support for speech with which one disagrees, versus taking away a right (abortion) that has existed for nearly half a century.

Of greater concern is that you seem to believe that the Constitution needs to change/be reinterpreted based upon demographic changes in society. Is that how it should work? The law varies based upon the ethnic, racial, religious or gender identity of the people involved? "Formal equality?" The "justice is blind" type of equality? Apparently, as you go on to express your concern about the "realities of structural poverty, racism, sexism and homophobia."

Assuming there is such a thing as "structural poverty," what do you expect the Courts to do? Wouldn't that be a legislative issue? It is disappointing that what the Left is unable to achieve through legislation they believe should be accomplished through the Courts.

I would surmise that you agree with President Obama's approach to the Bill of Rights - changing it from protecting the individual from abusive government power to mandating that the government provide ... (fill in the blanks).

Hillary Clinton, an attorney, said that "the Supreme Court should represent all of us." When did the Courts become a representative branch of the government? She also opined: "...the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy." Should we tar and feather the wealthy as well? And this from her: "...we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United..." Again, one's identity should predetermine the outcome of a case? Rather shocking, no? Why would we even need Courts?

As for Citizens United, a couple of quick points. Before the Citizens United decision, who was paying $35,000 to $40,000 per plate at Obama's (and other politicians) fundraisers? The average Joe? Hardly. Where was the concern about that money? Lastly, why the outcry about conservative money? Might it be because the Left has a virtual monopoly on political speech otherwise? Think the LA Times, the NY Times, The Washington Post, and most of the written mainstream papers. Think ABC, NBC and CBS. Think MSNBC, CNN. Then, we have Hollywood - TV shows, movies - one left-wing message after the next. Billionaires? Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are left-wing.

I am always amazed that so many on the Left are unhappy with the American system - providing more freedom than any other in history; and lifting more people out of poverty than any other. Yet, President Obama said we needed "fundamental change."