>By it's own definition: "opposes" is enough reason to be charged with contempt of court
President Trump:
"Oppose" was specifically picked as a term when describing contempt because of these two definitions.
-
disapprove of and attempt to prevent, especially by argument.
-
actively resist or refuse to comply with (a person or a system).
Number 2 is actually describing "Defies" yet Number 1 is actually describing disagreement by logical arguments. This is why they can abuse this definition because now both oppositions are equivalent and at the discretion of the perpetrator, in this case the judge. So not agreeing by logical argument is equivalent to defying a court order (of a guilty party), because an innocent party would have no such requirements.