Judge Clark ruled properly in the past, will he do so now?

What's really relevant here is the legal point:

Kline points out that *of course* he isn't required to get permission from what's-her-name to file charges, that he's filed charges hundreds of times without such permission. She's apparently just making this up. I'm almost sorry he met with her and is basing his case on this, as this seems a backtrack from the claim that he doesn't need her permission.

My guess from all of this is that perhaps it's a legal grey area. Perhaps the way it works is that Kline doesn't actually need her permission to file charges but that in practice the prosecution will go nowhere without her cooperation. Perhaps she is taking this arrogantly to allow her to claim that he needed her permission first.

I think Clark should base his decision on the actual law in the case. If there is no law that says Kline has to have her permission to file charges, Clark should reinstate them. That much is obvious.