Arguing that the judge does not have precedence in the law to make the decision in the case involving Donald Trump and the hush money conviction would hinge on several key points:

1. Separation of Powers: The principle of separation of powers delineates the distinct roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. If the judge's ruling appears to overreach into the realm of executive authority or interferes with the functioning of the presidency, one could argue that the judge is acting beyond the scope of judicial interpretation. This could lead to claims that the judiciary should not infringe upon the powers granted to the executive.

2. Legal Precedent: If there are existing legal precedents or case law that clearly outline presidential immunity for certain actions taken while in office, the judge's decision may lack a solid foundation in legal precedence. Arguing that the judge disregarded established case law could support the claim that the ruling is not firmly grounded in legal interpretation.

3. Scope of Judicial Authority: Critics could argue that the judge does not have the authority to interpret the law in a way that imposes legal consequences on actions performed by a sitting president. If the judge's ruling is seen as an attempt to redefine the boundaries of presidential immunity or accountability, it may be viewed as overstepping the judicial role of interpreting rather than creating law.

4. Constitutional Protections: The argument could be made that the Constitution provides certain protections to the president that should not be undermined by judicial rulings. If the judge's decision is perceived as undermining these constitutional protections, it could be argued that the ruling lacks legitimate legal grounding.

5. Political Context: The political environment surrounding the case could also be a factor. If the judge's ruling is perceived as politically motivated or influenced by external pressures, this could raise questions about the legitimacy of the decision. Critics may argue that the judge should remain neutral and avoid making decisions that could be construed as partisan.

In conclusion, the argument against the judge's precedence to make the decision in this case would center around the principles of separation of powers, adherence to legal precedent, the scope of judicial authority, constitutional protections, and the potential influence of the political context. Each of these points could be used to challenge the validity of the judge's ruling and assert that it was not appropriately grounded in the law.