Peak SG

Will: There's some, like the Ramos, the [unintelligible thing-- [crosstalk]
Anyway, but I think it does definitely have a version of that like these are the rules, Congress could have-- I guess there is a question like why did Congress not include new statutory rules in the 2255 exception? I think I've seen the suggestion which may be right, that it really was kind of a mistake. They were creating those restrictions on state habeas which are only about constitutional claims because get state statutory proceedings are left for the states and then somebody kind of copy-pasted those provisions over to federal without thinking about the fact that federal would also [unintelligible statutory. I have no idea if that's true. But it could also be somebody thought like constitutional rules are more fundamental, whereas statute of interpretation-- Yeah.
Will: But has more. I mean, it's interesting to compare the opinions. His opinion as a lower court judge, I think has a little bit more of a sense of why you do this. I mean, it's a lot of the stuff that I'm sure people roll their eyes at about the importance of finality. But I do think there is this narrative not on display in the majority opinion [unintelligible , but very much on display in the classic article by Paul Bator, which Gorsuch cites in the Henry Friendly article, people cite that sort of like, maybe it's not the best thing for liberty or the separation of powers to spend so much time, reopening and relitigating the cases of people who already have been through the criminal process once, and we ought to spend more time on other things.
I found interesting and part of what makes me in so long is after she tries to fight the merits, actual question, she kind of turns to general-- like a lot of general habeas talk. She's relitigates a little bit the battle with the Gorsuch and Thomas have had these narrowing habeas opinions recently, and Brown v. Davenport in another case, and she says, but wait, Lee Kovarsky and Jonathan Siegel say they're getting the history wrong. She cites a lot of habeas scholars who are critical of the general direction the court's going, even though it's currently settled precedent that the Constitution and the Suspension Clause don't care what we do to this kind of habeas. She says, "Well, I don't want to give that up." Cites Steve [unintelligible and Paul Halliday and other folks. So, I felt like the back half was doing something different. It was like laying down some kind of a marker. "There's a war on habeas and I'm on the side of habeas."