No again, I'm talking historical. For instance, in Japan historically and even currently the person in whom the people invested sovereignty was the Emperor. So the rule by the Shoguns was initially against the rule of law (I say initially because the Emperor may have eventually consented to it, I don't know). That in contemporary times there is a Parliament that determines the law may not be against he historical rule of law because its creation may have been directed by the Emperor.
The issue of the legislature versus courts in the contemporary USA is most likely irrelevant because a good argument can be made that the existence of the USA is against the rule of law.