His campaign rhetoric represents his personal statements that he was going to ban Muslims, not just people from certain countries.  Are you suggesting that personal statements made publicly aren't admissible in a court of law? To top that, he hired Rudy Giuliani to make his rhetoric appear constitutional. That is also admissible in court. Why would a reasonable person not think the rule's purpose was to ban a religious group which is not constitutional. The court so ruled.

Trump promised that he was able to make deals and would end the "gridlock" in Washington. He failed. Conservatives don't make up a majority, neither do liberals. The majority is made up of "the middle". They see Trump failed to do what he promised. 

First you argue that Trump's words as campaign rhetoric shouldn't be taken seriously and then your claim "Either their word(s) means something, OR it means nothing." Which is it? When do words go from mere rhetoric to being meaningful?