I've moved into the idea that "Justice does not exist" as well, particularly in regards to government distributed justice. All that it can really do is see if parties are effectively compensated when a contract is violated, and basically nothing else. The kind of personal, individual, justice that people seek is to subjective to implement in a system. The only good part of are system is that it actually can force people to compromise, which is the closest thing to mimicking justice that the state can manage.

"different states have different laws so of course rulings will be inconsistent"

On a system wide level, this isn't surprise. It's basically Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem.

For any logical system. It must inevitably be complete and inconsistent, inconsistent and complete, or neither complete nor consistent. No logical system is capable of being complete and consistent.

This means that the outcomes of any logical system will be consistent only so long as it's scope is limited; and if the system's scope expands, it's outcomes must become inconsistent.

This is true for all logical systems, including math and logic themselves.

It seems to be a fundamental truth of systems themselves, along with scope. As we expand the law, we must accept inconsistency in it's results. The system becomes inherently too large to be consistent.