Our founding fathers made the distinction between civil law and natural law.
Rights are granted by natural law. If rights were granted by civil law then they would not be rights, they would be privileges and privileges can be taken away.
That is a clear basis for which to make distinctions between cases a person might agree or disagree with even if the process is identical.
When law is used against the weak, it's probably wrong. When law is used against the powerful, it's probably right.
If you believe in rule of law, rule of law is the idea of preventing arbitrary exercises of power. You have to have power to exercise it, so rule of law is first and foremost a belief that the law should protect the weak and bind the powerful.
That can be a pretty convenient tool.
Decision I agree with: This is just like Brown v Board of Education of Topeka!
Decision I disagree with: This is just like Dred Scott!
Both major parties have done this and IME most individuals do this because they don't care about the law, only about whether their side "wins".