Agreed, for the most part.
If you're gonna have government with this kind of sweeping power, having the various branches have at each other over it is at least better than simply allowing any branch unchecked power.
Yep, I'm just kind of surprised that a federally appointed state-level judge can overturn an Executive Order, even temporarily. I assumed that would have to go to the supreme court, but I guess I was wrong about that
Well, someone has to hear it - usually a high court in a state can make the decision, and then you appeal up to a Federal court, and then appeal up to the Supreme Court, if they like, who then decides one way or the other (if they hear the case at all).
Constitution > President
Otherwise it could turn into a dictatorship rather quickly!
I don't know if I buy the "unlawful" argument some people are making. See here, section "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President". The EO seems pretty damn legal to me, and there is legal precedent for this with the 2011 Iraqi refugee ban and the 2015 Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.
On the flip side, it is good to see branches of the government challenge each other (I'm not counting the Democrat Senators refusing to show up for Cabinet hearings as 'challenging each other', that's just obstruction). The Executive branch can't go unchecked.