The Sixth Circuit also erred by consulting its own precedents, rather than those of this Court, in assessing the reasonableness of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision...

As we explained in correcting an identical error by the

Sixth Circuit two Terms ago, circuit precedent does not constitute “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1). It therefore

cannot form the basis for habeas relief under AEDPA.

To make matters worse, the Sixth Circuit decided Gall II under pre-AEDPA law, see 231 F. 3d, at 283, n. 2, so that case did not even purport to reflect clearly established law as set out in this Court’s holdings. It was plain and repetitive error for the Sixth Circuit to rely on its own precedents in granting Matthews habeas relief.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1968678&forum_id=2#20869978)

As we explained in correcting an identical error by the Sixth Circuit two Terms ago, circuit precedent does not constitute “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1968678&forum_id=2#20870047)

Reinhardt can't have all the fun.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49460/summary-reversal-ninth-circuit-judge-reinhardt/ed-whelan#

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1968678&forum_id=2#20870115)

I feel so sorry for the clerks who probably endured hours of misery writing this back and forth until the final draft.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1968678&forum_id=2#20870100)

Rate her prestige relative to yours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1968678&forum_id=2#20870180)

For decades, scholars and judges have assumed that federal habeas corpus review of state court criminal convictions should focus on the individual rights of habeas petitioners and that the federal courts should ask whether a state prisoner is being unlawfully detained because the state violated his individual federal rights. This individualized approach to federal habeas review is expensive, time-consuming, and woefully ineffective in stopping states from violating defendants' federal rights. Indeed, many states systematically violate criminal defendants' federal rights with impunity. This Article proposes a new conception of federal habeas review under which the federal courts focus on states, not on individual petitioners. Federal habeas relief should be available when a state routinely violates its criminal defendants' federal rights as part of a systemic practice. Reconfiguring federal habeas corpus review to focus on states and systemic practices would reduce redundancy, increase efficiency, and be more respectful of state institutions while, at the same time, recovering one of the original and now lost purposes of federal habeas corpus review.

lol good luck with that one

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1968678&forum_id=2#20870369)