Or maybe the judge is neutral, is simply doing his job and applying the law. In the very rare cases that some malfeasance is found then there are procedures to impeach judges. Nobody is suggesting this has happened, not even Trump, just you.(Original post by Ladbants)
The judge was influenced by his anti-Trump agenda. You can tell from what he said that he merely hates Trump's idea because of Trump, not because it was 'unconstitutional'. If it was unconstitutional, why didn't anyone rule against Obama's one month ban on Iraqis?
I'm sick and tired of judges interfering with the will of the people- it's happened with the triggering of Article 50 here and with Trump in the US. Trump was elected to do what he campaigned for. He campaigned for a ban. Now the opposition can sit back, complain and wait till the next election!
Judges have to be impartial and apply the law correctly.
Ther is an appeals system, which they are currently working their way through.
IIf more thought had gone into implementing the travel ban, then it could have passed though easily.
Judges arent interfering with the will of the people, they are administering the law, which is created by and to protect the people. It is far more important than some minor policy changes. Trump and politicians are not above the law and have to do things legally like everyone else. You clearly dont undestand about due process otherwise you wouldnt make the comments you have.
Find out how you've done here