I wasn't disputing the reasoning, or claiming something about the judge. My point is about the consistency of the document itself. It says a) we're doing this f

I wasn't disputing the reasoning, or claiming something about the judge. My point is about the consistency of the document itself. It says a) we're doing this for political reasons, and then b) and the grounds are these other completely different things. Whatever Her Honour's reasons are, is it OK for me to expect her to express them in a cogent and consistent manner in the order and not a blatantly inconsistent and unsound manner?