>>Judge Lind said that if an order has to be obeyed it is “lawful”. <<
Maybe she’s leaving him a sensible reason to appeal. I’m thinking of the My Lai Massacre.
Or, perhaps she means what she says; [and now] any order presumed to be lawful *is* lawful — thereby making any request for clarification of the lawfulness of orders tantamount to refusing those orders... perhaps she is TRYING to set up a Catch-22 situation such that the very act of questioning the legitimacy of orders is, in itself, punishable.
That would be a VERY, VERY bad thing indeed; but it is necessary for keeping the military in-line until they suddenly find themselves not with questionable orders but orders which are blatantly contraconstitutional; perhaps those that fear martial-law imposed on the US are not wrong at all.
{Martial law itself not being contra-constitutional; but look at the TSA and the 4th Amendment and try to argue that martial law imposed for any significant length of time will not be used to violate the Constitution.}
PS — We’ve seen something similar to this “presumed to be lawful” recently from our congress; do you remember “deem & pass”?
Just about every judge in the eligibility cases has done something that leaves room for appeals or something to taint the legitimacy or integrity of the decision. It’s very possible that those are deliberate., to allow the case to be revisited at a time when a judge could make a correct ruling rather than the ruling the Obama coup tells them they have to make.