Replies

Frequently during the last few weeks of incendiary debate I have gotten the distinct impression that what many posters meant when they spoke of their support for the "Rule of Law" would have been more precisely stated as support for the "Process of Law", i.e. due process. There seemed to be an implicit assumption that "the Law" is an entity separate from philosophical ideas and principles, that its implementation did not really require that the human beings who were charged with operating the levers and pushing the buttons of "the Law" be guided by those ideas and principles. Of course, everyone was in full agreement that such guidance was desirable, but sometimes there just isn't time, you see. It's unfortunate, but as long as a minimally sufficient amount of ingredients (testimony, affadavits, etc.) were dumped into the hopper, and the attorneys and judges turned the crank the correct number of times (hearings, appeals), and something resembling sausage popped-out, then "the Law" had been upheld. The fact that the end product was a revolting contradiction of the basic principles upon which "the Law" was built, and which it was supposed to serve, was regrettable, but irrelevant
this is the best statement exposing the fallacy of the "rule of law" argument that i have seen yet. bravo.

Amen. Bravo.