Since the Renaissance, Justitia, also known as Lady Justice or simply Justice, has most frequently been depicted as a young matron carrying a sword and measuring balances, or scales, and wearing a blindfold.

Traditionally, particularly in the West, Justice has been considered blind to the particulars of those appearing before her -- whether rich or poor, mighty or meek, of whatever ethnicity, background or station in life. She hears the case, balancing only the merits of the case upon her scales, and is ready to strike with her double-edged sword whichever party to a case deserves it.

But, forget tradition. Forget custom. Forget precedent. Forget the oft quoted maxim for the same and equal consideration for all before the Law, that "Justice is blind." Because NOW, with the coming of The ONE, not only have the seas risen and the multitudes been blessed but also -- wait for it -- Justice's blindfold is to be REMOVED! And she can SEE! Glory hallelujah! It's an Oba-miracle! Justice Can See! To celebrate, please turn to page 363 in your hymnals and let's all sing "I Have Seen the Light" together.

You see, President Obama thinks that a litmus test for a U.S. Supreme Court justice should be that he or she can "empathize" with the condition of the people who are parties to the case at hand. Keep in mind now that "sympathize" is not enough. Sympathize only means that one can cognitively understand another's position and identify with it intellectually. Empathize means that one can "identify with," can "feel" another's position, can "stand in their shoes," as it were. That's one reason he gave for nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- for the "richness" of her upbringing and background.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want judges, much less those comprising the U.S. Supreme Court, "feeling" that the law should be decided this way or that. What the law says, how the law reads, what considerations it takes into account for this or that person's or class of people's station in life is the purview of the legislative branch, NOT the judicial branch. I want judges and justices to "know," intellectually and dispassionately, what the law "means" as applied within the constraints of the Constitution in any given case.

I don't want justices who "feel" what a decision "ought" to be. Heck, I can do that. You can do that. Any of us can tell how we "feel" about how a case "should be" decided. That's not the point. And, besides, that's the formula for judicial activism, or "legislating from the bench," which is constitutionally NOT the purview of judges or justices. The point is what does the law say, is it constitutionally correct, and what does that mean as applied to the facts of the case at hand?

I want judges and justices who take the law as devised by the legislature and signed into law by the executive and apply it in accordance with the Constitution to the given set of facts in the case then before them. Let me say that again, to the given set of FACTS in the case THEN BEFORE THEM. Not the personal plight of plaintiff or defendant. Not this or that about the plaintiff's or defendant's station in life. And not whatever it might be "ivory tower theorized" could possibly happen as a follow-on ramification of this or that decision somewhere down the road.

No, no, no. Apply what the LAW SAYS to the FACTS in the case right THEN BEFORE THEM. That's all. That's it. If the judges or justices decide that what the law says is wrong, i.e., unconstitutional, then that law needs to go back to the legislative branch to be revised. It is not within the purview of the judicial branch to "modify" the law to "fit" whatever conditions or outcomes it "feels" the legislative branch "should have considered" in the first place. Not only is judicial activism itself, uh, unconstitutional, but it also leads to the infamous slippery slope, folks, and blurs the proscribed and preferred "balance" of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. If judges resent legislators acting like judges, then legislators have every right to resent judges trying to act like legislators.

Besides, this whole thing about an "empathy" litmus test for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, as well as the fact that many judges and justices do overreach their authority and are also political and/or social activists, somewhat reminds me of the town drunk, once again obviously as "drunk as a skunk," and appearing for the umpteenth time before the local magistrate. The drunk knows the judge is going to send him to jail -- again -- and so he pleads, "Your Honor, please, all I want is a little justice." To which the magistrate replies, "No, what you really want is mercy, and for that, you can see the chaplain. What you will get from me IS justice. That'll be 30 days."

Now, THAT'S a judge's or justice's job -- no more, no less. And, for that, Justice doesn't have to see the plaintiff or defendant, much less empathize with them. She only has to hear the case and decide it on the merits.