The tradition of American constitutionalism, practiced by
judges of all political persuasions over two centuries, has always held out an important place for history in the interpretation of the Constitution.
So, what the learned, but possibly biased (remember, the 50/50 rule pro or con here)
Judge has publicly stated as reasoning for the continuance of Dale's suit is, in «my» own words, that... «In my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological / political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason
Judge has publicly stated as reasoning for the continuance
of Dale's suit is, in «my» own words, that... «In my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological /
political perspective re how I want to apply the wording
of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole
judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason
judge of the presented facts and tactics
of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (s):