> the last 10 years of US politics

Ten? Oh man. Have you read about the FALN commutation? Iran-Contra? Watergate? The 1960 presidential election? Roosevelt (both of them)? Wilson? Lincoln? Those are just a very few of the instances of disrespect for the rule of law that come to mind immediately.

> Ten? Oh man. Have you read about [older things]

Slow down there, cowboy. "Ten" comes from how the other poster is pointing to a specific legal case, and the conviction which occurred ~9.75 years ago.

Like any religion, the rules usually don't apply to the leaders, only the followers.

Except that's fundamentally incompatible with "rule of law."

So whatever real-world thing being described would need a different term.

By that logic, nobody has lived under the rule of law ever, because it's only achievable in an ideal dream world.

* ty6853: "The car is reliable."

* Terr_: "No, there have been too many serious breakdowns."

* dns_snek: "It's reliably unreliable, so it still counts."

* Terr_: "No, that's literally the opposite of what it means to describe a car as reliable."

* arcfour: "Terr_! Stop demanding perfection! The universe is imperfect therefore true reliability is impossible!"

* Terr_: "No, goddamnit! That's not what I said! FFS, it's as if [RECURSION EXCEEDED]"

But that's what "rule of law" means: that the rules also apply to the leaders. The fact that leaders in the US aren't held accountable for their crimes means the US does not have the rule of law, but the rule of power. Or the rule of money, probably. The rich are above the law and can buy the government.

Rule of law would prevent all of that. Or should.