Most of us have seen a photo showing Justice blindfolded. This means that regardless of who you are, your wealth or lack of it, your stature in life whether president or gig worker, we are all to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and no one is above the law.

I saw that smirk come over your face as you read the opening paragraph, because most of us are convinced that Justice is not always blind. Sometimes, it appears as if she is peeking from behind the blindfold.

Justice is named for Justitia, the Roman goddess of Justice who was one of the favorites of Emperor Augustus.

The concept of a blindfolded Justice is intended to convey the message that the legal system is objective and unbiased, but in light of recent and conflicting rulings, it appears as if jurists now have a blatant political agenda.

We saw it in Wisconsin in the recent victory of a liberal state Supreme Court candidate who is unabashedly pro-choice, unlike her pro-life Republican opponent.

Then earlier this month, two judges - a conservative in Texas and a liberal in Washington - made contradictory rulings on the use of the most popular abortion drug used in the United States today - mifepristone. The conservative jurist ordered it banned; the liberal judge said it should not be banned in 17 states, which are party to a suit before the court. It’s likely the dispute will be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is controlled by conservatives who overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

In my mind, judges should have no party affiliation, nor should they be referred to as “liberal” or “conservative.” They should come into some of these very thorny cases with an open mind, not a preconceived notion. Although in many states such as Pennsylvania they run on a ballot just as other politicians seeking public office, they should not be politicians.

I know, I know. You are probably saying to yourself, “Hey, Frassinelli, from which planet did you just land?” I guess I am old-fashioned in the respect that I believe in the separation of powers: The legislative branch of government makes the laws, while the judicial branch interprets the legislation to see whether it passes Constitutional muster.

Pennsylvania has several key statewide judicial elections coming up this year. One is to fill the Supreme Court seat that opened upon the death last year of former Chief Justice, Democrat Max Baer.

Relatively speaking, the Supreme Court takes on fewer cases than the other two appellate courts - Commonwealth and Superior - but some of these cases are blockbusters. For example, in recent years, the high court ruled on cases involving election gerrymandering disputes, reproductive rights and mask mandates.

There are four candidates vying for the open seat, and the money has been flowing in by those who hope to tilt the court to Republican control and those who want to keep it in the hands of Democrats. At the moment, Democrats have a 4-2 edge with one vacancy, thanks largely to their success in the 2015 election.

Republicans have made voter-registration gains since then, so the GOP is optimistic that it can flip the court, which would be regarded as a huge win and major morale-builder after the licking Republicans took in the 2022 mid-term election when they lost the governor’s and U.S. senator’s races in embarrassing fashion, and the Democrats are now in control - although just barely - of the state House of Representatives for the first time in more than a decade.

Aside from being recognizable to party leaders, the four candidates are hardly household names to most of the electorate. The Democrats are Dan McCaffrey, 58, of Philadelphia, and Deborah Kunselman, 55, of Beaver County, both of whom serve on the state Superior Court, while the Republicans are Montgomery County President Judge Carolyn Carluccio, 62, and Commonwealth Court Justice Patricia McCullough, 66, of Allegheny County. The statewide Republican Committee has endorsed Carluccio, while the Democratic State Committee has endorsed McCaffrey.

If Justice is truly blind, then I believe judicial candidates should not run under party labels, but, of course, since Pennsylvania is a closed-primary state, this would be next to impossible. In an ideal world, a blue ribbon judicial committee should select the judges of the statewide courts, because most voters make their choices not because of qualifications or performance, but because of party affiliation, geographic location or what the candidate’s name looks or sounds like.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com

The foregoing opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or Times News LLC.