The authority of the king and the authority of the court

Hello Michi,
In the second part of the book, “Moves Among the Standing,” I explain that after the destruction, the king’s powers were handed over to the court.
Then, in the tenth chapter (page 156), during a discussion on the topic of “the meaning of the word,” you presented the issue of “the damage caused by the ox” as an example of the requirement of the meaning of the word in opposition, as it were, to the rule that verses cannot be interpreted in a purposive manner.
I wanted to offer another perspective on the issue: Is it possible to say, in light of your words in chapter two, that the issue of damages to the bull is within the king’s powers and therefore the rule “no one demands a reason for a decree” is irrelevant in this case?