I’ve heard that bit about so many cultures that I strongly suspect it’s a combo of “dem barbarians, har-de-har” and “let’s make the stupid foreigner look like shit in front of the other stupid foreigners.”
“Rule of Law” doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is treated equally. The first published laws, Code of Hammurabi, had different punishments for free men and slaves, and women certainly didn’t have the same rights that men did.
It means that the law is published so that no one has to guess at it, and it means that society in general subscribes to the law as binding. Hopefully, it means there are no ex post facto laws, making an action criminal after it’s been performed. When we get down to it, we could have all the laws in the world, but if the majority of us decided to blow off the legal system and start settling scores without resorting to the law, we are no longer governed by the rule of law. If the government starts rounding people up and executing them without first issuing warrants, indictments, holding hearings, then trying the case, finding the defendant guilty, passing sentence, and then executing it, we are no longer governed by the rule of law.
It’s the reason why there are all these nit-picky procedures in court cases and why laws are written in such mind-numbing detail. It’s why the majority of us may think a particular law is stupid, but we still obey it even when no one would catch us breaking it (what, you’ve never stopped at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere?).
There is no perfect rule of law. Jury nullification still happens, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad. Race and money have far too much sway in our courts, and our adversarial trial system can mean that the truth is abandoned while prosecutors pad their conviction rate and defense attorneys go beyond zealous defense to outright chicanery. However, we’re a lot better off than areas without the rule of law - failed nations like Somalia and areas in Afghanistan which resort to religious courts and tribal justice.
Overly slavish adherence to the “rule of law” also produces cases like this one, in the news today.
U.S. OK to Sell Widow’s Home Over $6 Bill, Judge Rules. ABC News, April 28, 2014.
The article appears to say that the house has already been sold. It’s not clear what would happen now if the court (or the coming appeal) should rule otherwise. The house was worth $280K, but they sold it for $116K.
ETA: Firstly, that Mr. Taxman chose to go ahead and sell the house over a $6.30 payment shortfall, and secondly, that a court upheld that (apparently after-the-fact).