Of course there's a fact. I think we had this discussion on another thread a few months back where I believe you agreed that the Constitution's meaning is fixed, and not a subjective matter. Thus, it's meaning is a matter of fact, not opinion. Thus, one can only ascertain its meaning; one cannot "decide" it.
So either the 11th Circuit court is correct in its interpretation, or incorrect. If the latter (and all evidence points in that direction), then their ruling is objectively of no validity.
I am rather skeptical that Judge Moore would look kindly upon me if I baldly applied what he is doing for himself to my own case as he pronounced a ruling in it. "Sorry Judge - your ruling is unconstitutional, so I'm not going to obey it."
Or perhaps not. How much luck do you think I would have in front of Judge Moore with that one?
Irrelevant. If he issued an illegal order to you, you have the right and duty to disobey it, regardless of how he feels about it.
So you assert. But the fact of the matter is that it is the 11'th Circuit who is empowered to determine it, not Roy Moore. In fact, Roy Moore swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the authority of the 11'th Circuit - how quickly that is discarded when it proves inconvenient!
Or perhaps not. How much luck do you think I would have in front of Judge Moore with that one?
Irrelevant.
Entirely relevant. Given that we have abandoned the notion of the "divine right of kings" these days, if Roy Moore has the right to choose which court orders he will sanction, then so too must I have that same right, and so must every other citizen. While I admit that this particular conception of "ordered liberty" is chock-full of liberty, it seems a bit light on the "order" part...