Congratulations on your nomination to the Supreme Court. Consider yourself the luckiest person; you will soon have an opportunity to serve the country you love and the Constitution you adore, as you said in your acceptance speech.

You have repeatedly stated that your personal beliefs do not enter your judgment making, and I believe it because you are a person of faith, a firm believer in whatever is your belief. You have a character. However, it is difficult to walk a delicate path when it comes to interpreting the law. You are first an English major and then a lawyer. Everything is written can be reinterpreted if it had been establishing a while ago; the intents do not change; their practice to apply changes frequently. An excellent example that you had offered is how sex discrimination will have to be interpreted today in trans-genders’ age. Laws may become obsolete with time. While this is the legislators’ job to keep the legislation updated, it does not happen as efficiently as it should, leaving the interpretation in the hands of the courts. If the Bible says, “Thou shall not…” there is never an interpretation required, but in the seat you will occupy, you will find that “shall” and “will” can be interpreted differently, as it happened in the Sandoz Inc v. Amgen Inc. case [No. 15–1039. Argued April 26, 2017—Decided June 12, 2017].

More problematic is decision-making that can have an enormous impact on the life of Americans. The Affordable Healthcare Act was voted in by the House, the Senate, and signed by the President. Did the three entities act following the Constitutional limits? The lawmakers, whoever they were, decided so. Now the ACA is coming to the Supreme Court for a challenge. I need not tell you how it will decimate the lives of millions of Americans. Even with the ACA, one of the worst countries to support its citizens for their ultimate healthcare needs. Taking down the ACA will have many more impacts, such as removing the BPCIA. This act created generic forms of biological drugs that save several trillion dollars and make expensive medicines accessible to all. So, when the ACA comes up for a judgment, it is not just an interpretation of the Constitution, capable of doing. Still, the Constitution does not teach you how to interpret its nuances—and it must be a nuance; otherwise, the lawmakers would not have voted it in. The filing to remove the ACA does not offer an alternative that must be required to consider repealing the ACA. A lot will depend on how you show that you love America for decades; you have the ultimate destiny for any human being—to able to serve. Now begins the hard part. Assure me that you will not politicize your opinions just as you have promised not to let your religious beliefs affect your decision. Good luck!