Rule of Law or Rule of Lawyers?

Allow me to speculate an inkling...

The debate of whether or not it is good that President Obama likes a Supreme Court Justice that is "empathic" in her rulings rather than one that follows the written law meticulously is on at the moment when Supreme Court Justice Candidate Sonia Sotomayor is going to be analyzed by the Senate.

It can sound nice enough with an empathic judge but in the extreme it is a question about whether or not it's the Rule of Law or the Rule of Lawyers. "We are a nation of laws, not of men"? The value of our legal codex is immense and if it is exchanged with ad hoc rulings this would be a significant step backwards.

Using my own experience it is possible to guess that what I have called Human Destruction Inc. (Människoförstörelsebolaget) could be an information source available to the judge that is not accessible to either the defendant or the plaintiff and their counsel. Its use is illegal according to the law, even of some people are trying to make it legal without most people knowing why, read FRA?

This might have happened here in Sweden as well. In the US President Obama might be of a new stock, read change, that wants to permanate this clandstine system of justice, read injustice.

It would be change of total historic proportions ushered in totally without the consent of the people. Human Destruction Inc. has short circuited our legal system.

A question that would interest me to know the answer to is whether or not the uproar around the FRA debate in reality is an uproar against Human Destruction Inc.?