I don't follow how you leap from non-absolute morality to dictatorship and otherwise capricious application of the law. I see the application of the law, its mechanics, as completely independent of morality. The actual content of the laws, yes, they are subject to conceptions of morality, but not their application - in so far as we aren't arguing the meta point of laws that govern application of laws.
Rule of law vs rule of [a] man, I see as an obsolete dichotomy in modern democracies. I think it's clear to everyone that capricious rule on whim by a single or handful of people is tyranny. I don't think you get there from moral relativism though.
As to judges interpreting law differently, well, that's unavoidable and in many ways a desirable feature of the common law system. As society changes, and views certain acts more or less harshly than others, the interpretation of various laws can change, setting precedents that become new laws indirectly. It's messy, especially when it's political, but I don't think there's an alternative. Lawyerly language as it is tries fairly hard to be unambiguous, but it's not machine code, and the law isn't as precise or as formally defined as a machine - and nor would we want it to be, since we aren't perfect enough to program it, and the world has too much ambiguity, too many unknowns - and unknowables - to produce certainty in judgements at all times.
Rule of law vs rule of [a] man, I see as an obsolete dichotomy in modern democracies. I think it's clear to everyone that capricious rule on whim by a single or handful of people is tyranny. I don't think you get there from moral relativism though.
As to judges interpreting law differently, well, that's unavoidable and in many ways a desirable feature of the common law system. As society changes, and views certain acts more or less harshly than others, the interpretation of various laws can change, setting precedents that become new laws indirectly. It's messy, especially when it's political, but I don't think there's an alternative. Lawyerly language as it is tries fairly hard to be unambiguous, but it's not machine code, and the law isn't as precise or as formally defined as a machine - and nor would we want it to be, since we aren't perfect enough to program it, and the world has too much ambiguity, too many unknowns - and unknowables - to produce certainty in judgements at all times.