Because it is called the rule of law, and Trump will play by the rules and follow the process, even if the judges do not.
If a President can just ignore court rulings we find unfavorable, what's to stop the next Hillary or Obama from ignoring rulings we find favorable?
They ignored all kinds of court orders, subpoenas, etc.
It’s not only about the rule of law. That argument cancels itself by the fact the the two judges took upon themselves powers that are not theirs to begin with. Should American federal courts rule on matters of the European Union? Of course not, because it is not something under their jurisdiction, just as immigration policy is not under their jurisdiction.
When the first judge in Washington State ordered the injunction, Trump should have immediately issued a statement explaining that it wasn’t valid because of any American court’s lack of jurisdiction in matters regarding immigration. By appearing to cave into the judicial tyranny, he appears weak and unable to fulfill his boasting of how he would turn the country around and not be bullied by judges, bureaucrats or the media. Where is that bold persona that promised all of this would be done immediately?
It appears that like every other “reformer” that goes to Washington, D.C., Trump appears to have been humbled on promises he swore no power would keep him from fulfilling “my first day in office!” For those who believe that he is setting some sort of trap and is about to spring it on his political enemies, I refer you to all the promised stories of “bombshell” exposes that would land Hillary and her cursed-crew in jail forever, resignations and trials for the worst offenders of the Obama administration, etc. But now - nothing.
I for one am bitterly disappointed by the lack of backbone and audaciousness that we were certain would be produced by voting for Donald Trump.