Disregarding the merits of the cases at hand, or the plausibility of a judge actually having written a 43-page opinion in 2 hours, two significant aspects of the "Trump travel ban" cases jump out at me.
First off, there are district court judges issuing rulings that purport to apply nationwide. Does this not fly in the face of the whole concept of a "district" court?
And then... well, to quote from this article:
Watson’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Hawaii.
But! To quote from this obsolete and antiquated document:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
So, um. How can the State of Hawaii file a lawsuit in a district court, eh?
Update: Here we go. Apparently Congress has, by statute, reassigned some of that which is assigned to the Supreme Court by the plain language of the Constitution.
So, er. What exactly is the point of having a written Constitution, if Congress can just legislate around it?