There's 'The Rule of Law' and there's 'Compassion!'

Republicans are wont to emphasize 'The Rule of Law' when discussing topics pertaining to what the law is.  On the other hand, Democrats obviate the written law by appealing to how the law should be applied and understood.  This is a very great rift between these two parties and pertains to how each party interprets the very Constitution of the country!

Indeed, I contend that both are principles equally to be relevant to matters of litigation.  We all would agree that compassion should be applied to instances of motor vehicle accidents:  determine whether the driver of a motor vehicle could be expected to anticipate the consequences of his driving when an accident occurred.  The question of bringing in compassion when a murder has been committed is far less clear; and the judge may be expected to look for signs of being sorry in the demeanor of the murderer in determining sentence.

Even far less obvious is appeal to compassion when the law clearly states the sentence.  For a time, recently, judges were required to pronounce sentence by the letter of the law admitting to no circumstantial extenuating circumstance, but I think that this harsh dictum has been changed back to enabling the judge in a case to decide on the basis of mitigating circumstances where relevant.

Now, in the instances of the many immigrants who entered the US with their parents, the do-called DACA cases, it would seem that the circumstances under which these immigrant children entered the country should be considered in determining the guilt of these children!  But there are many Republicans who are swayed simply by what the law says not how a considerate judge would apply it under these particular circumstances.  It is precisely that a judge, restricted to the letter of the law, is shown to be uncaring and impervious to how times change that makes the position of the 'letter of the law' Republicans absurd and inhumane.