The two presidential candidates commented Monday about the kind of Supreme Court justice they might nominate during their term in office.

Sen. McCain said he’d nominate someone who would follow a, “…strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.” That is to be expected in a democratic republic such as the U.S., where both rule of law and separation of powers (the checking of one branch of the government by the other two so one branch does not become all-powerful) are important in keeping the Constitution intact and our liberties secure.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, said he’d seek justices possessing “compassion” and “empathy.”  Compassion and empathy?  Sounds like Obama intends to nominate his good friend Oprah to the highest court in the land.  This is the most disturbing utterance to date to escape the voluble lips  of Obama.

Compassion and empathy are fine human traits, but they should not be the foremost attributes for a Supreme Court justice who must impartially interpret the Constitution to maintain rule of law.

If compassion and empathy are to reign supreme over rule of law, then our courts must ignore the law so as to dispense their own vision of moral compassion and warm empathy.  Of course, this path has already been well worn in many Asian societies where Confucianism places the highest primacy on social order and harmony at the expense of consistently applied law.  Such an emphasis, lacking a foundation in the bedrock of law with its Constitutional protections of individual liberty, soon leads to tyranny, judicial or otherwise.

Judges guided by compassion and empathy will soon find themselves creating “rights” for some that others will be forced to fund out of their own pockets – all without the benefit of a bill being passed by the people’s representatives, then signed into law by the president.