HOW CURRENT THOUGHT IS DESTORYING “RULE OF LAW”

This is how one writer described “rule of law”.
More than two hundred years ago, our Founders created and signed the Constitution of the United States. This codified, written constitution established that ours would be a nation governed by the rule of law.
My comment: It is because we would be governed by the written constitution or written law, and because we would elect representatives, we would be a constitutional republic. I have written about this importance and how it differentiates us from being a democracy which is ruled by some majority.
The concepts embodied in the phrase “rule of law” are both simple and complex. Its simplicity derives from the fact that the underlying notion is clear: all persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, economic or social status, or other group or individual characteristic, are equal in the eyes of the law. The concept, however, also requires that a complex web of laws and governmental actions come together to assure the protection of the rule of law for all.
My comment: The writer should have stopped at all persons. There is not regardless of specifics. When the specifics come into play it invites special considerations for those mentioned in the regardless of category. “Rule of law” means that Lady Justice is blindfolded and never in a favorable way or an unfavorable way will she recognize differences. Lady Justice must look at all as an individual and rule only on the specifics of the case. The left wants the regardless phrases so they can rule based on characteristics of a group.  This allows them to apply arbitrary law which is the mode of law employed in democracies; that is the majority of some body who will determine on which basis Lady Justice must rule.
The judicial branch of government is responsible for assuring that all persons, from governmental actors to private individuals, receive the full benefits of the rule of law. To guarantee that the courts apply the law fairly and equally, we must assure that the judges presiding over disputes are independent, impartial, and well-qualified. We also must guarantee that our courts are available to all for the fair resolution of their disputes. I am concerned about factors that impact our ability to fulfill both those essential promises.
My comment: The Judicial Branch of government was designed to be the non-political branch of government. This was the primary reason the founders decided to have Judges appointed for life. Yet today, rulings by judges as well as sentencing by judges can be predetermined based on their political leaning. When judges are before the judicial committee, the questions asked are such questions as to how they view topics such as the murder of the unborn, whether freedoms are absolute or relative, and if the Constitution is the law of the land or some antiquated document. Consequently, we no longer have a Judiciary Branch of independent, impartial, and well-qualified judges, but we have political hacks, many who have no understanding of our Constitution, as judges. The Judiciary Branch is our most failed branch of government because of the failures of the Senate and the Executive to honor “rule of law”.