In its argument for an appeal, the Justice Department had said the president had an “unreviewable authority” to suspend the entry of any class of foreigners. It said the ruling by [District] Judge Robart was too broad, “untethered” to the claims of the State of Washington, and in conflict with a ruling by another federal district judge, in Boston, who had upheld the order.On Twitter, Trump has been critical of the district judge's decision, but I don't think it's right to compare these criticisms to Trump's attack on the trial judge in the Trump University case. In the Trump University case, Trump said the judge was biased because of his Mexican heritage. In the current case, Trump's attack is not on the judge as a person, but on the decision he made, and the basis of the attack isn't some questionable (or offensive) extraneous material but the actual substance of the opinion. Trump is following the judge's order and using the judicial process to fight it.
The Justice Department argued that the president acted well within his constitutional authority. Blocking the order, it concluded, “immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment.”...
The Ninth Circuit court moved quickly to reject the administration’s appeal, a measure of the urgency and intense interest in the case.
Despite Mr. Trump’s vehement criticism of the ruling and the certainty that it would be appealed, the government agencies at the center of the issue, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, moved quickly to comply.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing judicial opinions, and this one lays itself open to criticism:
“The executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,” Judge Robart wrote. He said the states had been hurt because the order affected their public universities and their tax bases.
Still, Judge Robart’s order left many questions, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.
“Does the executive order violate the equal protection of the laws, amount to an establishment of religion, violate rights of free exercise, or deprive aliens of due process of law?” Professor Blackman asked. “Who knows? The analysis is bare bones, and leaves the court of appeals, as well as the Supreme Court, with no basis to determine whether the nationwide injunction was proper.”
ADDED: The relevant Trump tweets are (in reverse chronological order):
Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?As some commenters are pointing out, the phrase "so-called judge" could be called an attack on the man. But the only basis for saying "so-called judge" is what the man in the robe is doing in this particular case. There's nothing against him as an individual. It's very close to saying, in a substantive legal way, that this is a man who is acting beyond his proper judicial power. This parallels what the judge is saying: Trump is doing things under the appearance of being President, but what he is doing is beyond the powers of the President. This is just a man, not someone who can wield governmental power. That's not a personal attack. That's the rule of law.
Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
"The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."