Replies

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 ;)

Fortunately, the Constitution was written in somewhat more precise language than God's Word. It was also written in 200-year-old English, not 5000-year-old Hebrew. As an added bonus, we have additional writings from those who wrote it, to give us some additional insight into what was meant, whereas we have little objective insight into the mind of God. We mostly just have to rely on our own faith to flesh that out.

But all that aside, whether we're talking about the Word of God or last week's zoning ordinance, there exists an actual fixed meaning to the law in question, whatever that meaning is. I assume we can agree on that much.

From there, it's simply a matter of whether a ruling from a judge is in line with it or not. If it is not (not "if someone has determined that it is not", but if it is not), then the ruling is invalid. Maybe people won't know right away that it's invalid, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that it is.

From there, it's just a matter of whether you agree that the ruling is not in accord with the law. If you do, then naturally you're going to conclude that Justice Moore is obligated to follow it. If you don't, then...I'm not quite sure what you'd say. What if you could be convinced that the 11th Circuit court is wrong? Would you still be arguing that he's obligated to follow a ruling that you know for a fact is unconstitutional? Would you likewise argue that one is obligated to obey an act of Congress that you know is unconstitutional?

[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.

You're quite wrong there. Imagine the discord that would result from having no standard of reference at all. Law removes sources of disagreement. The disagreement you see now is merely residual.