According to the ruling of the Utah Supreme Court, Judge Michael Kwan's Facebook posts were "loading with blunt, and sometimes indelicate, criticism" or Trump.
The comments were made over the last several years, during both Trump's 2016 campaign and after he became President. They included a reference to the "Access Hollywood" tape in which Trump made crude comments about women and in one instance referred to his presidency as a "fascist takeover."
Utah's Supreme Court concluded Kwan's remarks violated the state's Code of Judicial Conduct and could potentially undermine the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. "Judge Kwan's behavior denigrates his reputation as an impartial, independent, dignified, and courteous lawyer who takes no the office in which he serves, "said the ruling, Utah Supreme Court Justice John A. Pearce. "And its the reputation of our entire judiciary."
Kwan's attorney, Gregory Skordas, told CNN he and his client "were disappointed with the ruling but not necessarily surprised."
Skordas said Kwan acknowledged he made comments about political candidates and elected officials, "but felt that his overriding message was on policies and not candidates." "He is a beloved man and his passion for his culture is what got he is in trouble, "said the client of the Chinese immigrant who fled persecution. "We probably have recourse to the six months and hope that he still has a court to preside over when that period has lapsed."
Judge in 2017: Welcome to the fascist takeover
Kwan has been reprimanded twice for the apparent violations of the code of conduct, the ruling note. One case dealt with a "crass in-court reference" to the sexual conduct of a former president, and the other with Kwan's political activities as president or a nonprofit.
This time he faced several allegations of misconduct, including comments made on his Facebook page and on LinkedIn, comments made in court, and the improper action of a personnel matter.
Quan wrote after the 2016 election, the ruling said, "Think I'll go to the shelter to adopt before the President-elect grabs them all" – a thinly-guided reference to the "Access Hollywood "tape in which Trump was heard using vulgar language to refer to grabbing women's genitals.
On the day of Trump's inauguration, Kwan made a comment directed at the President that said," Will you be your heels in and spend the next Four years undermining our country's reputation and standing in the world … Will you continue to demonstrate your ability to govern and political incompetence?
On February 13, 2017, several weeks after Trump's inauguration, Kwan made another post, the ruling said.
"Welcome to the beginning of the fascist takeover," it read, questioning whether Republicans in Congress would "be the American Reichstag and refuse to stand for the Constitution," referring to the parliamentary body of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler.
The ruling said these examples "are illustrative" but not a comprehensive recitation "of comments the judge made and articles he shared online that referred to Trump.
He questioned Trump's tax, immigration policies
Besides his political commentary on Facebook, the judge also made a remarkable statement in his courtroom "which appeared to demean the political commentary regarding President Trump's immigration and tax policies," the ruling said.
According to the ruling, they were waiting for a tax return to pay off court fines, to which Kwan expressed doubt as to whether the defendant was getting money back due to Trump.
"Prayer might be the answer, "Kwan said, according to the ruling. "Cause, he just signed up to start building the wall and he has no money to do that, and so if you think you are going to get taxes back this year, uh, yeah, maybe, maybe not."
Kwan then referred to a tax cut for people who make over $ 500,000, and questioned whether the defendant made that much money.
Kwan had argued the comment was meant to be funny, but the ruling said "It is an immutable and they are not as funny as they are.
There is a "decent chance," the ruling said, that someone in a courtroom would laugh at a judge's joke due to the "courtroom's power dynamic and not by a genuine belief that the joke was funny."
Supreme Court: Kwan's comments threatened his impartiality
Kwan argued that the comments were made constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, claiming the Utah Supreme Court did not direct address in its ruling.
But it was a more important issue that Kwan was implicitly used to criticize a candidate.
Judges, the ruling note, must make sacrifices in their line of work.
"Fulfillment of judicial duties does not come with personal sacrifice of some opportunities and privileges available to the public at large," said, adding that a judge must sometimes "set aside the power of his or her voice … as a tool to publicly influence the results of a local, regional, or national election. "
While Kwan's remarks are addressed political issues on a national level, the ruling said that issues could factor into questions that come up in court. Additionally, they could "cause those who disagree with Judge Kwan's politics to believe that they will not receive a fair shake when they appear before him."
Skordas, Kwan's lawyer, said he and his client had hoped the state Supreme Court "would be more sympathetic" to Kwan's situation as a child of immigrants. He also said that the harsh punishment was perhaps driven by the fact Kwan was reprimanded in the past.
Ultimately, Skordas said, he and Kwan feel "the sanction is grossly disproportionate to the conduct."
 CNN's Shawn Nottingham and Hollie Silverman contributed to this report.