In the picture below, we see a woman embracing a young Hispanic girl. Although much of the woman's face is blocked, we can safely conclude that it is Hillary Clinton, particularly as this picture appeared at her presidential campaign website, on a page titled "Immigration reform." But it was not really about reform of immigrants, for the subtitle elaborated: “…immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship." Of course, immigrants don’t need such a “pathway,” because they already have one. Unless, that is, they are "illegal immigrants." Then they don’t have pathway. So that is what this page must be about. Not legal, but illegal immigrants.

In that case, with respect to the above picture, we can safely conclude that this is not a legal immigrant that Clinton is embracing, and that the signs saying "I am with you" are not saying that to those who are here lawfully, but rather to ones that, either directly, or in connection with their families, reside in this country unlawfully.

The foregoing notwithstanding, this picture and page was part of Clinton’s campaign for the presidency -- that is, for the top law enforcement office in the nation. In running for such office, she saw no contradiction in embracing a young girl who, directly or indirectly, violated American law. How does she reconcile this?

While introducing Clinton for her concession speech after losing reelection, running mate Tim Kaine provides an answer:

"[Hillary] was inspired at a young age to an epiphany that if families and children do well, that's the best barometer for whether a society does well. In everything she's done, she's focused on that. We know that she would've made history as a president in one sense, but we've never had a president who's made her whole career about the empowerment of families and children… [Italics added]"

In short, she does not reconcile the contradiction. Instead, she subordinates the law to a higher purpose. (Or what she sees as one.) Her aspiration, her passion, is not really about governance per se; but rather about governance to the extent it advanced such a purpose. That, not the rule of law itself, was her guiding star. And if the law got in the way of it, the law needed to be changed. And not just for the future, but, ex post facto, for the past as well; those who violated the law would be rendered without consequence, and granted a way to citizenship (even as those who obeyed it look on.)

To put it more generally, Clinton saw government not as an end in itself, but as an instrument to do good. If, after all, it did not do good, then what was the point of it? And how can keeping a young girl with her family ever be anything but good?

In this picture, we have a very different image. In it, there is no living human being at all, but only a lifeless statue. And while the statute has a human form, it is not intended to represent any human who actually lived, but rather a goddess -- Justitia -- the goddess of justice. She embraces no one, but rather, in one hand, holds a sword -- the coercive power of the state -- and, in the other, the scales of justice. In some versions of her, she looks away from the scales, or is blindfolded. Literally, of course, this makes no sense. For if she is blindfolded, then how can she see whether the scales are balanced or not?

But the blindfold is intended to convey something different about the goddess -- that she weighs the scales impartially, "blind" to the consequences of her decrees, weighing only the demands of the law. She has no aspiration to "strengthen families," or anything else. She has no aspiration to "do good;" that is only for humans to do, or to attempt, as best they can, within the limits she prescribes.

And, since justice -- the administration of it -- is the primary purpose of government, the same logic applies to it. It is not the role of government to "do good." It is the role of government to create an orderly environment in which, of their own initiative, its citizens can do good, or attempt to. That is Justitia’s aspiration. She would not embrace the girl; she would tell her to get in line. And if the girl is an orphan, she would suggest to Mrs. Clinton that she sponsor and adopt the girl. Or another girl that is an orphan. That would not simply empower such a girl’s family; it would give her one.