> There are circumstances on which I think that would be fine. Nazi Germany
or
> Apartheid SA for sure. Antebellum America-- well such an action might be
> morally justifiable. (The "might" is because judges in particular have
> special institutional obligations that have a moral dimensions -- it is at
> least arguable that they are required make a noisy withdrawal from the
bench
> rather than knowingly violate the law.) But not, I think, _legally_
> justifiable. And you seem to agree, or you wouldn't call such action,
civil
> disobedience -- otherwise it would just be legal interpretation.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Yes , I am agreeing. What I mean by "legal" is that the repressive
> apparatus of the state stands behind it, will enforce it.
>
> The judge could give a judgment and issue and order, but the appeals
court
> would overturn .
>
> I'm not catching what you are saying is unexpected or unusual about
> something being "legal".
Well, one of his claims (which you don't seem to agree with) is that sometimes judges ought to enforce immoral laws. I happen to agree.
-- Luke