Call me hopelessly naive but I think it's generally a good thing to rescind laws we don't want to enforce (or choose to only occasionally enforce), fix laws that aren't working as intended, and actually enforce the remaining laws we keep.
>totally a discretionary thing
The example I posted about the KKK Grand Wizard being the judicially smuggled person was intended to demonstrate the grave danger of having enforcement of a law (in this case obstruction of justice) be "totally a discretionary thing." The same people who'd (hopefully) be "horrified" by a judge smuggling a KKK member away from law enforcement (pointy white hat and all), want to selectively give a hall pass to this judge for doing the same thing. Paraphrasing Monty Python and the Holy Grail, that's no basis to form a system of government.
> very much by democratic support.
If you're referring to elections, those are, at most, once every two years. I'm not sure how well cops are going to do their jobs with a two-year latency on "what crimes can we arrest people for today?" If you're referring to anything else, you're either endorsing mob rule (kinda the main reason 'rule of law' was invented back in Holy Grail times) or you're placing a lot of faith in "the current people in political, social and cultural power" always being exactly "the kind of righteous people who agree with me on everything important." Especially in light of recent events, I don't think that's a very solid governance plan either.
As a practical example, I'm kind of a wild-eyed radical on immigration. If I was anointed "King of the Land", I'd almost throw open the borders entirely to any and all comers (not quite, but pretty close). Of course, I'd also need to change some other things to make that work, but that's not important right now. And even though I'm that radical on immigration, back when some cities chose to become "Sanctuary Cities" by announcing the current elected officials had decided to just... stop doing their job of enforcing (some) laws - I wasn't happy like you might think. No, even though I liked the outcome in that one instance, it actually troubled me greatly that a handful of individuals elected in the public trust decided to unilaterally seize power by illegally subverting the constitution and their solemn oaths of office.
And the fact I felt that was very bad back then, even over something I generally agreed with, leaves me feeling like I'm on firm logical, ethical, legal and moral ground when it troubles me equally that Trump and his fellow travelers are abusing the public trust in, conceptually, the very same ways. If your support for "the rule of law" depends on who the current ruler is and whether they agree with your personal opinions. I think you're probably gonna have a bad time under any system of government that's not a monarchy or anarchy - with yourself as dictator for life.
On the other hand, I thought it was an incredibly dangerous and illegal expansion of presidential authority when Obama droned a U.S. citizen overseas without due process (even though that person was indeed an active terrorist). I'm funny that way about seizing power unconstitutionally. I'm always against it. No matter who does it or what they do with the stolen power. I hope those who are complaining today that Trump is using (and building on) the unconstitutional presidential power grab techniques that Obama pioneered, but didn't see a problem with it until someone they don't like started doing things they disagree with, are at least learning from this very hard lesson. Abuse of power is wrong no matter who does it or what they do.
