[inquest]

The reason we have courts in the first place is because, every once in a while, there is a disagreement about what is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional.

Yes, and it is their job to resolve such disagreements. That's why the agents of the state are predisposed to bring their rulings into force. But that doesn't change the fact that the law itself has a fixed meaning, and that therefore it's not whatever they say it is, even if they are actually able to enforce their (per)version of it.

I apparently don't get to decide which court orders I obey, I just get to decide which are "legal"....

You still misunderstand. An illegal order is illegal regardless of whether or not you've "decided" this fact.

I'll just take a poll about whether something I want to do is "legal" or not, and then we can skip this whole mess right from the start....

You'd have to do considerably more than take a poll. You'd actually have to get people to face the consequences of helping you out, knowing that there's no guarantee that their efforts will be successful.

What's the difference between that and civil disobedience against a law they simply don't like? Not much, except that they're doing so secure in the knowledge that the law is on their side, even if the authorities are not. The purpose of having law is to provide a common standard of reference regarding what we've agreed to allow and not allow.

[general_re]

This would go a lot easier if you would just admit I'm right ;)

But that doesn't change the fact that the law itself has a fixed meaning, and that therefore it's not whatever they say it is, even if they are actually able to enforce their (per)version of it.

What good is knowing that there's a fixed meaning if nobody agrees with you about what that fixed meaning is? I note that, despite the apparent fixity of God's Word, there are thousands of different sects, each one differentiating itself from the others by some interpretive exercise thereof. And if there is no unity there, how can we hope to do better with man's word? Shall we simply declare Judge Roy's notion of its meaning to be the correct one and impose it on everyone else? Or are we better off settling for some sort of resolution mechanism, as limited and imperfect as it may be?

An illegal order is illegal regardless of whether or not you've "decided" this fact.

Except that there are just so darn many versions of what's legal or illegal to choose from. I could just do what Judge Moore did, and argue that I don't have to obey someone else's notion of it, but I don't think the results of that are likely to be appealing to most people.

The purpose of having law is to provide a common standard of reference regarding what we've agreed to allow and not allow.

That, and and an extra bonus insofar as the law gives us all something new to argue about. It's a win-win ;)