Could be wrong - but my feeling is the judge has already decided for Brady and is not putting together his legal reasoning. Those questions are likely related to his ruling on partiality. He will write something like Goodell for whatever reason did not act like an impartial arbitrator - therefore his ruling is void according to contract law.
Then he simply cites the evidence where he ignored any and all exculpatory evidence.. Like you know the science, other explanations for the texts a so on and so forth. Judges like to ground their work in legal precedent. But they still get to decide the case ultimately.
If he thought that Brady really did it and deserved the penalty - he would just cite the strength of the CBA or whatever.. That's how the law really works IMHO.
Then he simply cites the evidence where he ignored any and all exculpatory evidence.. Like you know the science, other explanations for the texts a so on and so forth. Judges like to ground their work in legal precedent. But they still get to decide the case ultimately.
If he thought that Brady really did it and deserved the penalty - he would just cite the strength of the CBA or whatever.. That's how the law really works IMHO.