I see two problems, one of vocabulary and one of values.
The vocabulary problem: A "miscarriage of justice" is a wrongful conviction. It is not a miscarriage of justice when a tax cheat gets a sentence that many people (including me, btw) think was too severe, nor is it a miscarriage of justice when a community of religious supremacists defy a court, and are sent to jail.
The values problem: Try this thought experiment. Suppose a famously philanthropic, Lebovitcher Chosid named Shloimy Bubishkan was convicted of conning a yeshiva out of a few million dollars, and the Judge sentenced him to life in jail. Such a sentence would also be a departure from sentencing guidelines, but I doubt anyone would complain very much. Why not? What's the difference? Fictional Bubishkan would be tossed overboard by the Jewish community. I think we can agree on that. So why is Rubashkin supported?
The case in Emanuel is even worse. Suppose a community of white Christians arranged things at the public library so that the Jewish patrons had their own area, walled off from the white Christian section. Suppose the while Christians piously explained that they hadn't made these arrangements because they hate Jews - God forbid! - but because there are aspects of white Christian culture, practice and observance, that they wish to encourage.Would anyone tolerate such an explanation for even half a second? So why do otherwise reasonable people nod their heads, and say "I sort of see their point" when Ashkenazim do it to Sephardim?
Search for more information about the sad, unhappy decline, of my most favorite religion at 4torah.com.