Odd how you’re the only one focused on the case, when the article and the thread are all concentrated on the law. There is a ton of support for the law, no matter what the facts and history of that domestic dispute are. You might as well argue against the abolition of slavery because you didn’t like the personal background of President Buchanan or the Justices on the Court in the Dred Scott case.
Rarely someone will drop in a motion about considering the Constitutionality of the law governing the case.
Even though that law may have been endlessly debated, the entire exegesis will probably be appended to the motion, and with something new and previously unconsidered ~ e.g. the woman in the very first case that led to the passage of this law to undo a state supreme court decision did so and so and her rights were not addressed, and "your honor, my case is EXACTLY the same and we cannot proceed unless the woman in this cases is given her rights".
Well, there you have it.
Sometimes a judge will say "well, OK, let's do it'. Most of the time he'll deny the motion ~ which means you will need to take that to an appellate court. So, how rich are you. The answer is somebody is rich enough out there to do that someday.
That's why I'm sticking to the legal history. Doorbusting thug cops weren't part of this one ~ just two guys on a call from a citizen.
This law didn't fix the problem. Rather, it's just a ruse to fool the rubes into thinking Mitch Daniels cares.
If he cared he'd got his buddy removed from the state supreme court first!