A common argument against certain practices, e.g. jury nullification or overturning judicial precedents, is that they undermine the rule of law. But this claim reflects the same viewpoint as of a teacher who refuses to admit that he is wrong because doing so would undermine his credibility. On the contrary, acknowledging one's mistakes engenders respect and confidence. The credibility of science depends on the revisability of its claims, whereas the dogmatism prevalent in orthodox religion undermines its credibility. In what kind of rule do you have more confidence, one in which laws can be questioned or one in which laws must be blindly accepted regardless of the injustice resulting from such acceptance?
Moreover, what is more important, the "rule of law" in this narrow sense of unthinking consistency and predictability, or justice? And by justice, I mean what is sometimes called individualized justice, which is the only kind of justice, for what is justice if it does not apply to the individual? Is not the true rule of law for the sake of justice? One might say the rule of law is for order, not justice. But what is order? What do we want order for if not for justice? (For economics, perhaps.)
