Do you think that Reinhardt gives the state a fair shake in a habeas appeal?

One presumes that 1986 is the relevant date, and it is largely irrelevant to the merits. Still, when you are in the U.S. Supreme Court, one would think that you would proofread.

Indadvocate, I believe that if you note that my post about “on the merits” was in response to rfriedman’s, you’ll get a better sense of what I’m driving at. R.friedman’s complaint is that the state argues “standard of review” rather than the merits. My point is that the state certainly has the right to argue procedural bar, reasonableness of the decision or anything else in AEDPA-land. R.friedman would like more of a de novo hearing–or at least that’s the implication of his post.

And, if the certain judges on the Ninth are punishing Arizona for arrogance via habeas judgments, that, we can all agree, is unacceptable.

So, Arizona does not get a complete pass on the factual findings that their courts make, even though it would like to. Now, it may disagree with the federal court’s resolution of those issues, and obviously, it knows what to do about it when it does.

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/2006/08/aedpa_parole_and_the_constitut.html

I agree with you that it will be interesting to see the grounds upon which the Court decides. I don’t agree with your characterization of “whining” about losing in the past. The Ninth Circuit’s record with respect to habeas and AEDPA, to be charitable, is pretty bad. And to paraphrase a statement attributed to Judge Reinhardt, SCOTUS cannot reverse them all, so it is highly likely that erroneous Ninth Circuit decisions have overturned perfectly valid Arizona criminal judgments. Thus, it seems fair to me for Arizona to refer to this history, especially when some of the losses have resulted from a rigged game. Presumably at some point, the Ninth (or more accurately, certain judges on the Ninth) will get the message, and Arizona is certainly entitled to appeal to that presumption in its cert. petitions.

R.friedman, why should Arizona defend its criminal judgments on the merits. The Ninth Circuit is not supposed to conduct a de novo hearing into the merits of the claims raised before it, but rather is to determine whether the state courts acted reasonably. And let’s not forget that a very strong case can be made that with respect to habeas corpus, the states are simply not getting a fair shake from the Ninth Circuit. Sighing etc. or attacking the bases of questions are not bad responses to this problem. Like it or not, rfriedman, AEDPA is the law of the land, and judges are not permitted to ignore it. That’s what democracy is all about, and I find it interesting, to say the least, that you imply that results of the democratic process which comply with the Constitution (i.e., AEDPA, a clearly constitutional law passed by Congress) should be cast aside for the benefit of criminals. Forgive me for pointing out how out of touch and elitist that sounds.