Final answer:
Being skeptical about Dicey's rule of law recognizes the complexities of modern governance, the evolution of societal needs that may require adjustment in legal principles, and concerns over potential miscarriages of justice. It acknowledges that rigid adherence to historical interpretations of law may not always reflect contemporary values or result in fair outcomes.
Step-by-step explanation:
Being skeptical about Dicey's rule of law is important because while it advocates that the law should be applied equally and fairly without the whims of a ruler, there are nuances and complexities in modern governance that may not be adequately addressed by a rigid interpretation of such a principle.
Firstly, the rule of law can be seen as an evolving concept that must adapt to the 'felt necessities of the time', as put forth by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. This conflicts with a static view of the law, which may not consider the context of current societal needs. Additionally, the potential biases and errors of governmental institutions, as highlighted by historical judgments like Dred Scott v. Sandford, raise questions about the impartial application of law and the influence of political ideologies.
Furthermore, the idea that Blackstone's Formulation can be applied universally may be too optimistic given the complexities of legal systems and potential miscarriages of justice. Critics argue that applying Dicey's rule of law without considering these realities may lead to an inadequate reflection of contemporary values and justice demands.