When validity of statements are defined by identity and status of speakers, the rule of law goes out the door...

I always thought that the law must apply equally across the board.


Yet, I have learnt (the hard way) that the contents of one's speech may be perceived very differently.


According to my own experience, my research of case law and my review of multiple law review articles and books on the law and about the U.S. Supreme Court and the judiciary in general, the same constitutional argument may be:


(1) disregarded completely if it comes from a "lay" individual who is not an attorney - because he or she "does not know what he/she is talking about";


(2) glorified if it comes from a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (or lower court, for that matter) as an example of wonderful creativity and innovation;


(3) lauded or at last tolerated if it comes from a law professor, and


(4) be a basis of attorney discipline and sanctions if it is raised by a civil rights attorney in litigation.


It does not seem like the rule of law to me.