The intent of the law was to spur a de novo review of the facts as well as the law in the case. Whittemore reviewed the data from the state court, but could not have a de novo review of the facts in the limited amount of time he took.
To be fair, I have seen it cited on this board that he did what he should do given the pleading submitted to his court. I am an engineer, not a lawyer, so I must plead ignorance on this specific facet of the issue.
Then maybe they should have written that into the law. Except they didn't, because the senators specifically said they were going to leave everything up to the judge's discretion.
To be fair, I have seen it cited on this board that he did what he should do given the pleading submitted to his court.
He did. The law said to review allegations of abuse of her rights. The Schindlers alleged, he reviewed, and denied. I'm not a lawyer either, but I read his ruling, which included transcripts from the Senate debate of the bill and the clearly explained reasoning behind everything. It's like he wrote the decision knowing lots of laymen would read it since all the other decisions I've read are written more for lawyers. The decision was convincing that he did what he was supposed to do -- no more, no less, as I'd hope any judge would do.