Adobe StockUsed only with express written permission
"So Called Judges," and a Judge's judgment...
John is a simple man. John graduated High-school, served a stint the United States Military and then at the end of John's obligated duty he took a job in the construction industry. Additionally, John took a few classes at a number of Universities - some during Military service, some following his return to civilian life, but John continued to embrace the principles by which he was raised; John was raised in such a way that he fundamentally holds with Thomas Jefferson's lines from the Declaration of Independence, viz: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator by certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
John understands the phrase: "that all men are created equal"as an analytical proposition, thus John deduces the essential attributes (properties) from the concept of "equality of man" and infers that "men" means human (i.e., human, since gender is an accidental property, John infers Jeffersonian equality includes women). Additionally, John extracts two other essential properties which may derives from "the equality of man;" these attributes are human's are equally mortal, and human's are equally moral beings. Now John - because of his upbringing - has an intuition of the Socratic dictum: "It is a greater evil to perpetrate and injustice, that to suffer an injustice," although, John acquired an intuition of that principle, long before he ever read a Platonic dialogue, or even knew anything about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. As a consequence of John's moral outlook, John can be counted upon to judge (he has a reputation, as being a fair, unbiased individual...) - if asked to judge a situation, and the people and interests involved - objectively.
John - as a simple man - holds that principles-of-law must reflect the moral principles which are implied (i.e., logically and necessarily presupposed) by the concept of inalienable Rights, and human equality; thus, John sees laws which contradict the inalienable Rights, as not only logically inconsistent with the self-evident truths Jefferson describes, but inimical to the foundation of the Law. More could be said - regarding John's temperament - but the rest may be derived logically, because John is a principled being, he inveterately places sentiments (John has feelings, but the knows feelings cannot be trusted as guides in the promotion of justice...) aside, in all judgments regarding human conduct.
Now contrast John with Carol; Carol upon graduating High-school - with honors, mind - attended one of the best Universities (or at least it is held to be one of the best...). There Carol's undergraduate studies were dominated by courses in the social-sciences and the humanities; she particularly enjoyed philosophy and social-political classes. Carol graduated summa cum laude, and thenCarol's went on to graduate school - earning two Masters degrees (one in social-political philosophy, the other in Constitutional Law), before earning her PhD in Constitutional Studies; coincidental with Carol's studies, she worked as a paralegal, and later as an attorney (following her passing the requisite bar examination), through her academic studies. Carol taught Constitutional Law, for a short while, at a one of the schools of which she was formerly a student - Carol's clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, and is presently a Federal District Judge. Carol's view on the U.S. Constitution - and the Declaration of Independence - is that they are antiquated documents, from a naive, by-gone era of distastefully, disgusting axiomatic bigotry. Carol speaks of the Founding documents of the United States - if she must speak of them, and in any venues open to the public - with a certain amount of deference, so as to not to "show-her-hand." Carol deeply feels - with every fiber of her being - that judges should always attempt to right the wrongs of History, and begin her adjudications siding with the disenfranchised - whether they be actual (i.e., currently identified as members of currently recognized disaffected), or historical (i.e., are members of groups which formerly were victims of the white-man's oppressive rule). Carol listens to arguments - for which she is to adjudicate - whereby attorney's (unbeknownst to any one other than Carol herself) may be able to move Carol from her emotional reflexive ruling, if they can make a convincingly emotional appeal; such almost never occurs! Carol - because of her disposition - thinks it her duty to balance historical injustices (although, Carol isn't exactly conscious of such an impetus driving her judgments); this results in Carol's decisions to be favorably viewed, and celebrated, by the ideologically ordered "intellectuals," and with abject contempt from Constitutional originalists.
So the question then is: "Which - John or Carol - is more akin to the blindfolded "Lady Justice?" Which individual would be preferable to the average citizen to judge their particular situation, if they had need to appear before a court?
Which of these individuals would you - whoever you are1 - prefer to make a determination as to who, or what, may be allowed to immigrate (from one of the 7 Middle East countries which President Trump would like to impose a temporary ban) into the United States, to live next door to you, and/or to those whom you love?
1 Of course I understand that those on the social-political Left are inveterately opposed to the truth, unless the truth agrees with their interest, as it is understood by them; so they - like Carol - will tell lies publically, as if they are the truth; this since ideologues are inveterate liars!
Thomas J. Donegan