I'm busy stopping friends from promoting conspiracy theories and Hitler comparisons left and far-left. Yet the fear voiced in the comment you're replying to doesn't seem to be completely unwarranted.

One of the key principles of "democratic procedures" is that the courts have final say over all executive activities. It is obvious that this principle is centre to some of the recent tweets saying (paraphrasing from memory) "what has our country come to when a court can <stop me from doing something>". Note how the country hasn't changed a bit and there's a long history of the courts stopping various measures enacted in the name of security. To use an example from the other end of the spectrum: imagine "@prezObama: What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a National Security handgun ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can walk around with a deadly weapon?".

Note that this isn't about the actual policy. It also isn't about complaining about a judge's decision. It's about the assumption in the statement that courts shouldn't have jurisdiction over such matters.