On to SCOTUS? Virginia appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban

It's come to this: The federal judiciary now believes it has to right to throw out perfectly legal actions that are within the president's authority, if in the personal opinions of the federal judges, the president might have had a motive they don't like. We're now making up the law as we go along:

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia on Thursday refused to reinstate President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban for six Muslim-majority nations, in another legal blow to the White House. A majority of judges on the appeals court, in a 10-3 decision, said they were "unconvinced" the travel order had more to do with national security concerns than a "Muslim ban."

The court also found the challengers were likely to suffer "irreparable harm" if the ban were implemented and that it might violate the U.S. Constitution. The appeals court maintained the injunction against the travel ban in full.

This is in keeping with lower court rulings that used the same so-called reasoning. They completely ignored what the law says about the president's authority on the question, and ruled that it doesn't matter that Trump has the authority to issue the order because think they he's mean and really wants to just ban Muslims. Once this precedent is established, how can't it be used to challenge absolutely anything Trump does? The fact that he's acting within his legal authority is now apparently completely irrelevant as long as someone can make the case that Trump would do something horrible and awful if only he could, and that he lies awake nights dreaming of that very thing.

---

Someone might want to explain to these judges that we have this thing called the separation of powers that takes care of that problem. Even if you elect a big old meanie, his ability to exercise his meanness is limited by the law itself. The travel ban order Trump actually issued is nothing like the "total Muslim ban" liberals dream he really wants, so what they think he wants is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether his actual actions are legal. They are. This case seems rife for a Supreme Court review, does it not? If judges can strike down laws for reasons like this, then no one can implement any laws. Everything will be subject to the whims of whomever happens to get the case when the inevitable lawsuit is filed. The Supreme Court has to establish, and quickly, that this cannot be a basis for upholding or striking down perfectly legal actions. And the attorney general has to consider it the highest priority to make sure such a review happens, and as quickly as possible. Doesn't he?