I was proposing a hypothetical from the Watergate era wherein a soldier recieves an order through his chain of command from the Commander-in-Chief to opppose through force of arms a legitimate order from the Supreme Court.
A soldier refusing such an order would be subject to court-martial. Upon conviction and appeal to the Military Appeals Court, the soldier may then appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Do you think that the Supreme Court of the United States, having ordered Richard Nixon to turn over audio tapes, would then uphold the conviction of a soldier who refused to take up arms to oppose the carrying out of that same order?
If the Militia mounted an armed effort to carry out the Supreme Court's order, would the Supreme Court uphold a conviction of a soldier who refused to fire on the Militia?
If you were a soldier, would you obey an order to fire on someone carrying out such an order from the Supreme Court of the United States?
If the question seems bizarre, it is due to the rarity with which unlawful military orders are issued. If you can find a less "bizarre" way to consider how a soldier can refuse to carry out unlawful orders, feel free to do so.