I acknowledge what you and James both said. However, you are interpreting laws as computers, because it suits your human needs.
Interpreting laws as a computer generally is grounds for a revolution. Regardless of your and James' feelings on the issue, regardless of how you believe it "should" have been handled,
a Judge has made a decision that this case is not open and shut, so has not indicated predecision, but clearly indicated he/she feels it is worthy of consideration by human minds in an open situation.
Issuing a shutdown and shutup order may be your perception of correct behaviour, but it establishes a precedent to the case that the person shutdown was in some sense in breach breach. By standing aside until delivery of evidence, it makes a clear indication that the judge believes the case has merit, in that the evidence should be obtained. The judge understands the final decision will have very significant impacts upon American society, which will have flow on effects throughout the world.
KP and James, you are not the Judge. Subject to appeals and Supreme Court decisions, the law is what the Judge says it is.
Ian