[freedomwarrior998]

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?

[OldDeckHand]

"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? "

No sweetheart. I couldn't care less about this case, or homo marriage. And, domestic law is about as far removed from my area of practice as you can get. You'll forgive me if I'm not up on the latest rulings stemming from a 1970's MN Supreme Court case.

But, I have picked up on a disturbing trend amongst people who say that they're conservative thinking, but they sure do want some judicial activism when a particular case doesn't go their way.

I'll say it one last time - judicial activism isn't OK when anyone does it or advocates for it, especially conservatives.