Rule of Law vs Rule of Whim?

Harkening back to previous comments about the difference between the Rule of Law and the Rule of a Whim ( http://rights.com/2000/11/20/the-rule-of-law-or-the-rule-of-whim/ ) Federal district judge James Robart of Seattle’s recent ruling embodies the difference between the rule of law and the rule of whim.

Federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could not be clearer:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

When the judiciary ignores the law, the meaning of the “law” is lost. We are then no longer a country of laws, not men, we are a country of men’s whims, not law.