> Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. It’s not much worse than the decision of whate

> Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. It’s not much worse than the decision of whatever-party-got-to-appoint-a-judge-at-the-right-time. Seriously, considering the constant stream of bonkers ideological decision in various courts, including federal, who decide to ignore both law and precedent when it suits them, your faith seems to be misplaced. Rule of law works when you have a working judiciary. Unfortunately, that branch of the American government is not really in a much better state than the two others. > Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Common law is a gentleman’s agreement that courts will follow precedent. It broke down recently in several spectacular occasions, at which point no, laws cannot be counted on. > Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile. That’s an argument for an independent civil service, not for the end of agencies. A change in government should not mean a collapse of the administrative state or wide swings on technical policies. It’s not magic, both the UK and the US (among many others, but these two are easier to discuss from English sources) used to do it.