The confusion of taking the law as a moral entity

The law is amoral.  The law may be conceived in morality, but its practice is amoral.  It's practice is adversarial, and thus the rule of the jungle prevails.  Hence, the law will set free an OJ Simpson, but will convict an innocent man.

Thus, the rule of law is always in effect.  What may be missing is the morality of an outcome.  But the law is what it is.  It is designed to produce an outcome, but not necessarily one in accordance with morality.  For the law is explicitly amoral.

Huh?  Well, take the OJ trial.  The moral outcome would have been to punish the murderer.  But this didn't happen.  You may claim that the rule of law is broken, but actually the rule of law is what brought the result.  It's the result that offends one's morality, but it isn't because there's no law.  It's because the rule of law produced an outcome that wasn't in accordance with morality.  You had your trial, but that's all the law affords.  If you don't get that right, you're shit out of luck.

Still confused?  Well, it is confusing.  I once made that mistake myself.  One lives and one learns.  The law doesn't concern itself with anyone's morals.  It just is what it is.

I'll try to remember that in the months and years ahead.  People who screech that the rule of law has been violated are just confused about what the law really is, and what it ain't.