Once again, this would only be so if the judges wrote the law or could remove the king by fiat. If all they are doing is performing a legal duty then it is not the men but the law that is removing the king by the same authority by which it also seated him.
Only if they are the source of the law, which they are not.
It is not a contradiction. Your idea of how the law works, which is to say your understanding of what the rule of law means is faulty.
Yeah, well, we live in a country right now that demonstrates that your all or nothing stance is a false dichotomy. This country has existed with a separation of powers that are each designed to limit and check the other branches of government - and it works. It's far away from perfect but it has demonstrated over a dozen or more generations that it does, in fact, work. The Congress can remove the President but it has failed to do so even once and that's with the Congress having the power to write new law. How much harder would it be for a sitting, but unpaid, non-political judge who cannot write new law to wield sufficient sway over a king by virtue of the mere threat of a legal proceeding that is not guaranteed to remove him from office, especially if the charges are trumped up?
