But it did have something to say:
JUSTICES' FULL STATEMENT:This case highlights once again the perversity of executing inmates before their appeals process has been fully concluded. Under our normal practice, Muhammad’stimely petition for certiorari would have been reviewed at our Conference on November 24, 2009. Virginia hasscheduled his execution for November 10, however, so we must resolve the petition on an expedited basis unless we grant a temporary stay. By denying Muhammad’s stay application, we have allowed Virginia to truncate ourdeliberative process on a matter—involving a death row inmate—that demands the most careful attention. This result is particularly unfortunate in light of the limited time Muhammad was given to make his case in the District Court.
I continue to believe that the Court would be wise to adopt a practice of staying all executions scheduled inadvance of the completion of our review of a capital defendant’s first application for a federal writ of habeas corpus.See, e.g., Emmett v. Kelly, 552 U. S. 942 (2007) (STEVENS, J., joined by GINSBURG, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371, 379 (1998) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Such a practice would give meaningful effect to the distinction Congress has drawn between first andsuccessive habeas petitions. See 28 U. S. C. §2244(b). It would also serve the interests of avoiding irreversibleerror, facilitating the efficient management of our docket, and preserving basic fairness by ensuring death row inmates receive the same procedural safeguards that ordinary inmates receive.
Having reviewed petitioner’s claims, I do not dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. “I do, however, remain firmly convinced that no State should be allowed to foreshorten this Court’s orderly review of . . . first-time habeas petition[s] by executing prisoners before that review can be completed.” Emmett, 552 U. S., at 943.
7 years is enough time to clear the technical legal hurdles.
Colour me shocked.
NOT!
That was a comment from three justices, not the court as a whole.
they had 7 years. It’s not the state’s fault they are inefficient, and can’t be bothered to keep up with paperwork...
The statement comes from three of the court’s most liberal blow hards. What else could you expect?
At least the whole court has rejected good enough for me
I continue to believe that the Court would be wise to adopt a practice of staying all executions scheduled inadvance of the completion of our review of a capital defendant’s first application for a federal writ of habeas corpus.See, e.g., Emmett v. Kelly, 552 U. S. 942 (2007) (STEVENS, J., joined by GINSBURG, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371, 379 (1998) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Such a practice would give meaningful effect to the distinction Congress has drawn between first andsuccessive habeas petitions. See 28 U. S. C. §2244(b). It would also serve the interests of avoiding irreversibleerror, facilitating the efficient management of our docket, and preserving basic fairness by ensuring death row inmates receive the same procedural safeguards that ordinary inmates receive.
Having reviewed petitioner’s claims, I do not dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. “I do, however, remain firmly convinced that no State should be allowed to foreshorten this Court’s orderly review of . . . first-time habeas petition[s] by executing prisoners before that review can be completed.” Emmett, 552 U. S., at 943.
---------------------------------
PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION: We should be permitted to dither for as long as we like in order to delay executions indefinitely, because we're judges and you're not.
Fortunately, no possible moral error here; although lawyers would certainly look for a legal technicality to excuse the inexcusable.
So they’re saying there should be a longer lead time from announcing the date of execution so more time for the appeal is available ?