Judges upholding the rule of law
<p>It's a judge's duty to decide disputes brought to them, but when people say that judges uphold the <strong>rule of law</strong>, does it mean that it only applies in the sense where judges were to deliver judgment in an impartial manner?</p>

<p>The Wikipedia article <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule of law</a> favorably quotes the <em>Encyclopedia Britannica</em> defining the rule as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In general the rule of law requires that written laws, as interpreted by the courts, be applied to all, and there there be no special exemptions that apply only to particular persons, nor special laws that only affect some people or groups. The rule is a statement of an ideal which is not always achieved.</p>
<p>&quot;when people say that judges uphold the rule of law&quot; that means that the judge applies the  appropriate previously enacted law, and does not make a decision based on the judge's own personal view of what the law ought to be. This includes the rule of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Stare decesis</em></a> that things once decided shall normally remain decided, that existing rules are not arbitrarily reversed or altered by a court.</p>
<p>This would include the judge not deciding a case or issue on the basis of personal bias or prejudice, but it means more than that. It means that the law  should not,change depend on what judge presides over a case. Again, this is an ideal not always achieved.</p>

england-and-wales common-law judge