**Why I like December 4th**

Clearly, because it is not December 3rd.

December 3rd was the day I had the delightful experience of taking the LSATs.... again. Now these two questions might pop into you mind... Again? Why? Well for the obvious reason. The only possible reason someone would subject themselves to that experience voluntarily... more than once.

Money.

My law school deferral is up this year and I either enroll or shelve my plans. Permanently. I have no money to go. Between the costs of two private college educations (albeit, I contribute a small percentage of the sticker price), gourmet dog food and my own penchant for sushi, there is nothing left. And at my age, I am not about to take on the kind of debt it that would result from financing law school.

So law school, in particular, this law school has been weighing heavily on my mind. I was thinking about this reception this law school holds for admitted students. It typically is at some fancy schmancy law firm. These kinds of things fill me with angst. It begins with the fact that I have no clothes for such a thing. My angst then shifts to my own personal challenges interacting in large groups of people I don't know. I think they were peddling medication for this condition at one point. Social anxiety disorder was the diagnosis of fashion.

I imagine the hosting attorneys asking us newbie admits what kind of law interests us. Each area of law that I get exposed to, starts to fascinate me. So currently on the list is obvious media law and all its subdivisions, such as intellectual property law, FCC regulations, First Amendment jurisprudence, etc. Especially, when these issues hit the appellate level on constitutional questions. I also am interested in civil rights law because of my work with the ACLU. And then there is family law - thanks to my experience with my ex - although I probably would not raise this one at a reception. Would probably scare off most big firms.

One observation occured to me as I walked into town this morning - a chilly, foggy morning, but not raining, to my great and pleasant surprise. I was thinking about how interesting is the concept of blind justice. We (and I mean the generic "we") seem to toss around this term as some kind of descriptor of our legal system, or at least as some kind of ideal, and yet it is not achievable nor is it really desirable in my mind outside of matters involving the state as prosecutor.

When I sat in court this past October, and watched my attorney talk to the magistrate about how she sits on a court of equity and has the discretion to reach an equitable solution as opposed to a blind application of the most narrow reading of the statute, I realized he was arguing that blind justice is, in fact, not desirable. Blind justice leads to the unsituated application of statutes, regulations and policies without recognition that each sitution comes with its own unique set of facts. Blind justice leads to the comments from judges along the lines of, "...clearly the respondent/plaintiff is a slimeball, but the law lets him be a slimeball. And until the law changes..." A court of equity can account for someone being a slimeball, trying to manipulate the system and use loopholes to advantage.

Blind justice doesn't see the slimeball.

So now I am interested in whether there is a reconciliation between Rawl's notion of blind justice and the court of equity. Possible essay topic if I can free my mind up to dwell on it a bit.