I don't know. They seem so impressed with their power and infallibility that they don't have to think much.
As I understand it, the judge sided with Acosta on the grounds that 1st Amendment rights (and "due process stuff," perhaps) implicitly demand that the White House have written rules for proper behavior in the White House.
If that is his position, then the judge is a
MORAL NINCOMPOOP, in my opinion. He is a self-righteous
LEGALIST who falsely invokes the Constitution under the assumption that must misapply it to reign in a tyrannical POTUS. (Dear, dear.) But since the POTUS is
not behaving as a tyrant, the
judge is. The judge is snaky, not Solomonic.
The President's position may be distasteful, but it is necessary. The judge should have dismissed the case. The matter was clearly none of his snotty business. The President has the transcendental right to enforce even unwritten rules of decency and order in his own White House.
(I assume that Trump thought the guy he was appointing is a conservative; perhaps the guy himself thinks he is a conservative. But the judge is a actually the archenemy of true conservativism, i.e., the Constitutional kind. He is legislating from the bench
by ordering more regs from the Executive Branch. That is not a conservative approach. It is part of the Creeping Destruction of our civil society. It is ultimately anti-Christian--which is why it is happening so much in our day of pervasive reprobation. And whether or not
Trump is a genuine Christian, he is being mauled by MSM and by bad judges precisely because he identifies with Christians and presides accordingly. The poor judge has not the faintest idea what he is doing.)
***
At the bottom line, we have a lot of really bad conservatives in all branches of our government. To borrow prince Hal's line, "The first thing we need to do is kill all the lawyers."