I noticed you kept singling out the federal government in your post, without mentioning the state government. I understand the dangers inherent in the federal government getting involved in anything, and I can even sympathize with the view the state government needs to think twice before doing anything rash. In the current FR poll, I voted "no change in respect, but he should have defied Greer", but now I'm not so sure if that's the right solution. It seems to me that if the law needs to be broken, it should be broken by the people themselves, not by those charged with enforcing it. It certainly makes things considerably more difficult, but I think it's a necessary difficulty for the safety of the rest of us.
But that doesn't mean that I think it's remotely a good idea that this woman's adulterous husband is calling the shots for her. The law definitely needs to be changed, but more seriously, the law, as is the case from time to time, doesn't deserve to be respected. Everything about this is so utterly barbaric that it scarcely deserves to be dignified with the name "law".
Because I have no problem with the state government getting involved. Madison was clear on that issue and Scalia agrees with him. Haven't seen Thomas' stance but I imagine he would agree with Scalia.
If Florida wants to muck around with their state laws and constitution, that's the business of the state of Florida. But my stance still is that the family should make the decision. Yes, you will have instances where the wrong family member makes the decision but I'd take that chance compared to some politician making a standard one day in the future that should be followed regardless of the family's position