USA Legal jurisprudence has been debating the two approaches for scores of years.
If you take Jurisprudence in law school you better not argue against the professor’s political bias when you participate in assigned cases.

Einstein’s faith was in reason, that the universe is coherent and consistent (that it was our understanding that was incoherent, disconnected, inconsistent).

That applies in legal law as well, not only science or its underlying principles. I think he would take exception to the new age physics approach which interprets the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as suggesting that nature is equally coherent and spontaneous, rather than primarily coherent.

In legal law, the application of consistency, coherency, implies that there is a natural “law”, a reason that even constitutions are subject to. That conflicts with the American conservative constitutional approach which assumes that only passed legislation is law, that there are no rights until they are articulated and legislated. That is similar to religious injunction.

Richard, I start to like you. I’ll create a character called “Richard Witty” and he will be very, very insistent. Basically a good guy, that feels he has to single-handedly prevent an imminent catastrophe. He thinks there are times for decisions and times to act, and act consistently.

Not legislations, but reason, of which legislation was a customization.

A German criminologist once asked for the files in corruption cases for her thesis. Some of the law courts didn’t want her to have them and declared them closed. If remember matters correctly–I’ve been told this by a guy that works in the field and now teaches the topic–many of the files she couldn’t use were such dismissed actions.

Yes there is power but not necessarily the power of God.

What did Einstein talk about?

God’s laws?
or
Nature’s laws?
He talked about the laws of the creator of nature.

“The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.” Albert Einstein

Not legislations, but reason, of which legislation was a customization.

Yes, but that quote marks the point of Einstein’s end of understanding too.

Well, Palestinian terror attacks have essentially disappeared, and rocket attacks from Gaza have just about ceased, but the Israelis don’t seem to have noticed and nothing really changes, particularly the rhetoric.

It was never about terror, it was always about grabbing the land and expelling the people.

There are rule of “laws”, which is different qualitatively than the rule of “law”.

The big difference is in the application of precedent and legal consistency. Rules of laws can be arbitrary, prejudicial, discrimminatory.

Rule of law in contrast is by definition coherent, integrated, predictable, accountable, color-blind.

The Zionist right vacilates between rule of law and rule of “laws”. The Palestinian nationalist and religious parties vacilate between advocacy for rule of law and rule of “laws”. The militant left vacilates between rule of law and rule of “laws”.

For radical moderates, the rule of law is THE content, and to reject that is to reject the foundation of the whole moderate “ideology”.

Some philosophers have argued that the world itself is not consistent, not coherent, that the seeking consistency and coherency is itself a faith.

I and Einstein aren’t there yet. That is what Einstein meant when he said “God does not throw dice”, that nature/reality is coherent or whole, and knowable by reason.