Comments on: Phoning it in

By: MissConductPDX

MissConductPDX — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:34:17 +0000

Heck–I was just thinking that the decision might allow me to never have to be in the same room as my least favorite district attorney ever again.

Wishful thinking, I guess.

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:48:30 +0000

I agree that you can characterize it as “procedural”, but that doesn’t quite get the job done.

In any event, as for the Clinton hacks comment, well, I’m sure that the GOP has never been bashed here . . . . Bottom line, these two Clinton appointed exemplars of the judicial calling couldn’t make a straightforward application of Musladin to a very similar case (i.e., where there is no controlling Supreme Court caselaw). This is by no means an isolated incident–Clinton judges seem to have a problem with applying AEDPA.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:37:37 +0000

Procedural as in it wasn’t a decision on the merits of his claim. It’s not that they said that being absent during the plea is not ineffective, they just said that it shouldn’t have been heard by the district court because they haven’t expressly said that.

You really could have made your point without the “Clinton hacks” statement.

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:58:38 +0000

I don’t think it’s really accurate to call this a “procedural” reversal. AEDPA is the law, and it provides a substantive limitation on when federal courts can grant habeas relief. Bottom line, there were two Clinton appointed hacks at the Seventh Circuit who botched the case, not once, but twice.