To be as clear as I can be, at issue in this case -- and I can't particularly be concerned about precedential value. I understand your concern in that regard. I have to try this case the best way that I know how. The concern in this case, and it is a vital concern by all parties, is that we have, as you well know, to restate the obvious, we have newspaper articles within which there are quotes from individuals. Those quotes go, at least in one sense, to the purpose behind the policy that was enacted by the Dover School Board.
Even though the precedent set by the policy of the Dover School Board may be controversial, this is not a factor in the decision as this case is presided over. 
The stated facts were simply rearranged. 
( z1 factor :polarity - :domain ( z2 controversy :domain ( z3 precedent :ARG1-of ( z4 set :ARG0 ( z5 policy :ARG0 ( z6 board :mod ( z7 government-organization :name ( z8 name :op "Dover" :op "School" :op "Board" ) ) ) ) ) ) ) :prep-in ( z9 decide ) :ARG1-of ( z10 cause :ARG0 ( z11 preside :ARG1 ( z12 case :mod ( z13 this ) ) ) ) )