Varying circuits have applied Baker in varying ways. It may be the law of the land, by that law is remarkably under-defined. Until the Supreme rules more definitively, it's impossible to predict what the "law of the land" will be.
Take a look at Wilson v. Ake. The Court didn't have any problem figuring out how Baker applied.
I find it interesting that you seek to try to limit the holding of Baker as much as possible. Could it be that another agenda is bubbling underneath the surface?