[camaraderie]

The judge is like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn’t design or alter the rules of the game. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The judge’s courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can win if the law — the objective law — is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don’t have a rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is done — not manufactured.

While that view is a good analogy to the role of judges...it is an overly simplistic view of the role of a JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT. If the LAW were clear...the Supremes would not be hearing the case. So it is their role to look at ALL the facts...and try to find how OLD law and Constitutional principles may be applied to NEW situations that have never been dealt with before. The difference between activist justices and traditional ones is how much leeway each gives in calling the "strike zone".