“Rule of law” sounds a lot like protection of the state at all costs from the peasant class.

I think you’re getting confused. The term racist isn’t applied that way because it originally meant that you deemed another ethnicity as another race OR that your race does not include that other ethnicity, usually in order to imply that they are sub-human. There are still people who think like that unfortunately.

So you don’t have to be against the entire human race to be racist, you just have to dis-include part of it in your definition.

However, a cop’s job is never to beat someone, shoot an unarmed person, break the law, etc. So there’s no immunity for those actions. None.

Same with the pieces of garbage judges in this case. They were breaking the law – there’s no reason to give them any immunity in this case, as they weren’t doing their jobs. They weren’t judges – they were criminals who had obtained judicial positions. Hence, no immunity.

Christmas celebrations by businesses and other non-family groups could be handled by choosing the month in which the largest number of employees have Christmas, or using the name of the company (if you work at Costco, it’s in February). Most churches would probably leave Christmas where it is, which is fine, since they’re always on everyone’s case to remember that Christmas is not ultimately about shopping, and for 92% of the population it wouldn’t be. We could even call the other 11 days collectively “the Holidays” and reserve “Christmas” for the religious observance.

The solution to absolute immunity: private justice.

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_vids/Reno911_Dungeons_and_Dragons.htm

They may be immune from legal action, but if they insist on it, they may not enjoy finding out that they aren’t immune to rope.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115283824428306460.html

The emails from the University of East Anglia (aka the Enron of science) show the activities of the small clique of researchers at the heart of AGW research. Here is an excerpt from Wegman’s 2006 social network analysis of temperature reconstruction, annotated with links to the searchable archive of CRU emails:

http://limitedmodifiedhangout.blogspot.com/2009/11/ad-hoc-committee-report-on-hockey-stick.html

One of the interesting questions associated with the ‘hockey stick controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process. In particular, if there is a tight relationship among the authors and there are not a large number of individuals engaged in a particular topic area, then one may suspect that the peer review process does not fully vet papers before they are published. Indeed, a common practice among associate editors for scholarly journals is to look in the list of references for a submitted paper to see who else is writing in a given area and thus who might legitimately be called on to provide knowledgeable peer review. Of course, if a given discipline area is small and the authors in the area are tightly coupled, then this process is likely to turn up very sympathetic referees. These referees may have coauthored other papers with a given author. They may believe they know that author’s other writings well enough that errors can continue to propagate and indeed be reinforced….

Only the politicians are entitled to outcomes contrary to the written rule of law, no go home and stop complaining serfs!