Those last three lines there put a big shiny grin on my face. I don't agree with the judge's opinion of what constitutes a 'reasonable' restriction, but overall he seems to be one of the good guys.
This sort of backwards reasoning, however...
MS. FARBY: Okay. The Postal Service is not required to enact the most reasonable, or the only reasonable, regulation, so just because the Postal Service could have imposed a standard that was less stringent than the one it has imposed, does not mean that the standard it did impose is unreasonable
Am I reading something wrong or did that lady argue that the Postal Service's restrictions aren't unreasonable because they're not required to be reasonable? If A then B. A therefore... C?
"We don't have to be reasonable therefore we aren't being unreasonable?" Total logic disconnect. What is she smoking and who gave her a law degree?