Excellent question, I did vote "random is random" because I think that is a decent principle when solving certain irregularities. However, I do think it's important to follow regular procedure to the extent possible and not let "random is random" become license for dealers to invent their own procedures on a whim.
By the same token "Sacred order of the cards" overstates the extent to which procedure must be followed and lends itself to the believe that errors should invalidate entire hands, which is not true either.
So both choices lead to undesirable extreme position, but a fair random solution fixing a procedure error is better than just insisting a hand is invalid on certain procedure errors.
The most frequent/normal scenario is the dealer misses pitching a single player one of their cards and simply gives them the last one off the top of the deck before the burn.
This one I would call back because it opens up too many exploits to someone that can control a deck. If a dealer is controlling a card, it seems to me it would be easier to access simply by skipping the intended recipient by accident and the base dealing it or second dealing it as a makeup.
Or there's a double-board bomb-pot and the flop cards get jumbled, causing the order of top and bottom to get mixed up. The dealer randomly decides where to place them on the bottom and top, before flipping them over to expose the cards. Or the dealer pitches out too many cards to a couple people, but instead of taking the last one back, since they didn't see which card was last and the recipients didn't look, one is chosen at random. Or maybe your host/dealer places both Scarney boards face down to start (which is fine), but then trolls and randomly chooses which bottom and top cards to flip over instead of doing 1-3, then 4-5, then 6.
This is just plain lazyness or incompetence and this dealer isn't even qualified to play war. How hard is it to maintain a "top board" and a "bottom" board. And this is another example of where procedure is better than random because it opens up a dealer exploit where he wouldn't have to be a mechanic to gain an advantage, just a discreet peek and he suddenly can decide which board is better?
And no, cards should never be dealt face down in advance, that's 100% a bad procedure
In all of the above scenarios the dealer shrugs and says, "Random is Random".
Do you...
1) agree with the dealer that Random is Random?
2) believe in the "Sacred Order" and now your hand has bad juju and that the dealer fcked you? (This vote doesn't mean you will protest the random selection, just that you believe in the Sacred Order mattering for the ultimate benefit/juju of your hand.)
3) have no opinion, because you're an indecisive prick?
So bottom line, random is random when dealing with legitimate errors (premature burn and turn for example), but procedure keeps those errors to a minimum and limits the ability of dealers to exploit for advantage.
So I would say the two examples you gave are certainly not a case for "random is random," but random principles can be applied in other spots.
