How is it judicial tyranny for a judge to refuse to go outside of the constitutionally mandated procedures for removing a president?
Those "Constitutionally mandated procedures" say they are applicable to Presidents. Assuming that the person is what the plaintiffs are alleging that he is not, is prejudging the case.
The assumption that being sworn in is the final step in becoming President, and negates any other then unrevealed or unproven deficits, is not Constitutionally correct, IMHO at least. Which of course since I'm a mere citizen, has no weight whatsoever.