The Judge said that it's okay to violate constitutional harm if it's temporary. That's purely idiotic. Once the right Is violated it's violated.
The judge didn't say anything about violating rights.
Let me explain it to you in layman terms.
Let's say your boyfriend rape you. But you defend him, because although you ass did temporarily hurt, he did not violate you.
Let me give you a better one. A man puts a knife to your throat and rapes you. During the rape you orgasm and scream "Don't stop!" Were you violated?
The second the judge said temporary harm he admitted that constitutional rights were violated. It's okay to harm those constitutional rights if the harm is temporary and the cause is a good one.