Cannot tell if the comment you are replying to are supposed to be sarcastic or not. I do think it's odd that this diary apparently feels that Judge Sotomayor should have ignored the law and simply made a ruling based on her empathy.

Judges really do not have the power to ignore plainly written law.

I didn't find a copy of the 2nd Circuit Appellate Opinion (no access to for pay databases with appellate court decisions), but I did locate the name of the Appellate case, and noted it earlier: Deskovic v. Mann, 210 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2001). If you obtain a copy, toss it my way please:
pdsa
at
impietease
dot
com
is a good pointer.

The changes in habeas corpus appeal rules greatly hamstrung the Federal Courts, when dealing with appeals arising from state court convictions It's really screwed up. When I first started reading into the Congressional Records about this legislation, it made me sick.

Yeah, BillyJeff deserves a share of the blame, but not all or even most of it. Clinton asked Congress to come up with some sort of habeas reform. Orrin Hatch has kept the unwashed temple garments he came in the day he heard Clinton say that, as a memento. Gutting habeas corpus has been a lifelong dream of his.

Habeas reform legislation had no business being jacked into terror prevention legislation. Anyone who believes a terrorist will be restrained from committing a terrorist act, simply because of a quicker application of the death penalty, should he survive be captured, and subsequently convicted, is an absolute moron. Just about every proposal that could have been helpful in averting terrorist attacks was stripped out of the legislation by Republicans: Chemical taggants in explosives and explosive precursors, multi-point wiretaps for court ordered taps of terrorism suspects, Allowing the AG access to military expertise when investigating crimes involving chemical and biological weapons, and legislation that would have criminalised dissemination of explosive manufacturing information, if done with the foreknowledge the information would be used for criminal activities. The Republicans played up fear the government angle, using Ruby Ridge and WACO.

Here's some of Senator Edward Kennedy's reasons for voting against the legislation, from the Congressional Daily Record of April 17, 1996. He was one of only nine Senators who did. Pay close attention to what he said about the Habeas Corpus provisions:

It eviscerates the ancient Writ of Habeas Corpus, denying death row inmates the opportunity to obtain even one meaningful Federal review of the constitutionality of their convictions.

It returns to the discredited cold war guilt-by-association policy of the McCarran-Walter law, excluding individuals from our shores based on mere membership in an organization. Current law already contains authority to exclude members of known terrorist organizations. The far broader sweep of this bill is unnecessary and excessive.

It places excessive restrictions on the ability of refugees to obtain asylum in the United States. This provision was never considered by the full Senate, and it ought to be debated on the immigration bill, not the terrorism legislation.
[. . .]
It is unfortunate that the unrelated and controversial subject of habeas corpus was injected into this bill in the first place. Proponents say that habeas corpus is relevant because the suspects in the Oklahoma City bombing are charged with a Federal capital offense. But that fact is no justification for changing the rules with regard to State prisoners.

The habeas corpus proposals do not strike a fair balance. The bill denies death row inmates a full opportunity to raise claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence. It will therefore increase the likelihood that innocent people will be executed. The proposal to limit inmates to one bite at the apple is sound in principle. But surely the interest in swift executions must yield to new evidence that an innocent person is about to be put to death. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote, "Swift justice demands more than just swiftness."

Also, the proposal would unwisely require Federal courts to defer to State courts on issues of Federal constitutional law. A Federal court could not grant a writ habeas corpus based on Federal constitutional claims, unless the State court's judgment was "an unreasonable application of Federal law."

It is a serious mistake to require a Federal court to defer to the judgment of a State court on matters of Federal constitutional law. The notion that a Federal court should be prevented from correcting a constitutional error because it was a reasonable error is unacceptable, especially in a capital case. Ever since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Federal courts have served as the great defenders of constitutional protections, and they should remain so.

Christopher Hill, "Troy Davis Suffers Another Blow ", ACLU Blog, April 20th, 2009:

The 11th Circuit refused to hear Davis’ claims of innocence by a 2-1 vote. The decision was largely based on the onerous procedural obstacles that a death row inmate must overcome before a federal court will consider the merits of his or her constitutional claims – in Troy’s case, his claim that the execution of an innocent person violates the cruel or unusual punishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

These procedural restrictions are the result of the federal Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), enacted in 1996. AEDPA was designed to expedite the execution of death-row inmates by streamlining the appeals process. But the Troy Davis case is a tragic illustration of AEDPA’s fundamental flaws. The law elevates procedural niceties over fairness and justice by preventing some death-row inmates from proving their innocence because their evidence or claim of innocence was presented too late.

cherry picking

Of course I am--how often do you think a court clerk gives out incorrect information? Of that set of events, in what subset does the appellant rely on the incorrect info to his detriment? Of that set, in what subset does the reviewing tribunal construe the reliance as irrelevant, with a resulting miscarriage of justice?

That said, she did it on this occasion, and I believe it betrays a willingness to permit an inequitable outcome where fairness militated the contrary.