That's only one of the options available to Oracle. Oracle can trim the case to a size that is manageable, or can wait for the USPTO to reexamine the claims and perhaps trim it for them.
That's basically the definition of coercion (wikipedia says "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, ..."). It doesn't strike me as justice.
Never said it wasn't coercion. But it seems to me that Oracle is attempting to coerce the court into behaving in a way that may be detrimental to its ability to provide justice for others. So there's coercion all around.
When Oracle filed their claims they put themselves at the mercy of the same legal system that allows them to file said claims. The judge in this case is simply exercising his authority. You can't have your cake and eat it. And more importantly, this might set a positive precedent for other patent cases.