"An executive order of the president must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the president specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the president." The Constitution is indeed protected by the separation of powers so that an executive order cannot implement unconstitutional law or act contrary to Congressional approval without judicial consequence. It is constitutionally the job of the courts as one of the three equal branches to challenge and act. The power of the judiciary, (unlike executive orders of which there is no mention) was decided at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 where no Founder disputed the power of the judiciary to set aside unconstitutional law. This does in practice and effect not bind the executive, but holds them to lawful account. At the Constitutional Convention, neither did they question federal judges would have the same power to set aside unconstitutional legislation from Congress. There is no provision for any executive order to abuse or be above the powers of law. "A law that ought to be negatived will be set aside in the Judiciary department." James Madison Not one Founder or Framer disputed or questioned their collectively held understanding that federal judges would have the power to suspend or nullify through judiciary power. And of course it gets political when a politician issues edict through an executive order. And it is a little politically hysterical if not paranoid to presume everything that challenges Trump is to delegitimize Trump. You are of course aware courts have struck down a Democrat President's executive orders. That you don't see a downside to a President ignoring the 3rd Branch suggests a North Korean system might appeal more. Perhaps someone in the White House should be responsible for putting 'I fought the law and the law won' on Trump's and one or two other President's playlists.
I do not think it is an ideal situation by a long shot. It' s not as bad or as dangerous however as living under a judicial tyranny, where random district court judges can interfere in crucial and complex national security matters. This judge went looking for a fight or more likely headlines. Prudence would have dictated not seeking out a direct confrontation with the Executive Branch. A TRO properly issues only in situations where preserving the status quo is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. Forcing a few immigrants to wait a few days or weeks to get on welfare is not irreparable harm. It certainly is not irreparable harm to the parties, the states of Washington and Minnesota. Any direct harm to them is speculative and de minimus.
Obama dropping bombs on and killing muslims in seven muslim countries isn't unconstitutional. But limiting immigration from seven muslim countries somehow is. It just depends on whether you're singling out mulsims to kill them or limit their ability to come to the US. Nuance.
this is not the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that any subordinate laws (basically any law that is not the Constitution) have to be conforming with the Constitutional principles. The judge in question determined that what the prezident put into action MAY violate the constitution. Hence he ordered it to be tested. Simple as that. Calling him a "so-called judge" is one of the worst comments Trump has ever made.