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?
If the judge serves nothing but his whim by violating the oath of office, then he is violating not merely the letter of the man-made law but more inportantly the moral law also, as all judges on the left do by definition.