So we propagandise ourselves all the time. One powerful piece of propaganda is that we live under the rule of law and not the rule of men.* Sometimes, however, that argument becomes somewhat threadbare. Take the case of Trump v Hawaii:
Whatever one thinks of the travel ban as policy, the ruling is an important victory for the rule of law. Federal trial and appellate courts have persistently enjoined Mr. Trump’s orders, defying clear Supreme Court precedent supporting his power to limit the entry of aliens. The decision has removed all doubt that the president’s orders are lawful under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution.
Sounds like the system works precisely as designed.
The court upheld Mr. Trump’s order 5-4.
That was the US Supreme Court.
Now even for a layperson it was obvious that the POTUS has extraordinary powers and discretion in allowing entry into the US. The executive government of every country has similar discretion. What becomes troubling is that the mechanism that ensures we live under the rule of law (even if we don’t like or agree with those rules) failed so dramatically and was only upheld through partisan majoritarianism.
* “a government of laws and not of men” is the original quote.