Well, in any case he needs to weigh whether a greater good can be achieved by violating the professional oath but putting a positive change into effect. For example, if an innocent life can be saved by the judge (or any other legal professional in the case) by breaking the law, recusing himself rather than saving that life is immoral. It is like jury nullification as applied to judges. Law is only as good as it is moral; upholding an unjust law is dishonorable.
It is called anarchy. Your moral justification for legal nullification is another's justification for keeping the law. It is simply moral chaos. You have basically justified why the Democrats believe in selecting judicial activists...those who would supplement the courts for the legal hierarchy that exists today.
What you countenance is the elimination of the legislative process. Why have laws at all? Let's just leave all actions to a judge and jury. If they feel that some moral wrong has been done, then they can adjudicate it as they may, using only their consciences.
But of course, justice for a Muslim judge will be far different than justice for a Catholic judge. How about an atheist judge? Let's make sure I understand it correctly....After the following oath is taken by a judge:
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of this office: ''I, _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _ _ _ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
After that oath, it is alright with God for the judge to forsake that oath taken before God to follow another set of "moral imperatives" if the judge feels they are more just than the Constitution of the US?
A judge has no authority to act in his own person, but only as an agent of the law -- if he attempts to act beyond the scope of the law, he is simply a clownish figure in a funny robe whose pronouncements need be taken no more seriously than those of the pathetic lunatics living in the streets.