We now have a second federal judge who has placed a hold on the president's travel ban; this time from the state of pineapples. The judge admitted throughout his rather hastily prepared ruling (perhaps even written ahead) that there were no legal problems with the executive order. His decision to temporarily halt the ban was based almost entirely on his own personal feelings about what President Trump's intentions were. It was an irrational ruling not based in fact but on the subjective intuitions he gleaned from Trump during the heated days of the campaign.

Is this the sort of judiciary the framers of the Constitution had in mind, wherein judges substitute emotional perception for legal and constitutional expertise? Where they willy-nilly ignore the constitutional system of checks and balances by denying the president a power that is rightly his?

As far as the travel prohibition being a violation of the Establishment Clause, there is no mention of the Muslim religion in Trump's order. Lastly, as for the judge's concern of the potential (and surely remote) damage such a ban might inflict on the Hawaiian economy, perhaps he should contemplate the possible harm blocking this order might have on the state's people. 

Peter Wilson

Groton