maybe you could explain what clinton' atadpe act did.

i've never heard of it.

One provision of the AEDPA, limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. While critics have charged that this limitation effectively forecloses the power of federal courts to remedy unjust convictions, federal judges have found ways to grant relief to prisoners in habeas cases despite the limitation. After all, some interpretations of federal law can be not merely incorrect but actually unreasonable, thereby allowing federal courts to grant relief under the first prong of AEDPA's limitation.

Other provisions of the AEDPA created entirely new statutory law. For example, before AEDPA the judicially created abuse of the writ doctrine restricted the presentation of new claims through subsequent habeas petitions. The AEDPA replaced this doctrine with an absolute bar on second or successive petitions. Petitioners who attempted to bring claims in federal habeas proceedings that have already been decided in a previous habeas petition would find those claims barred. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required to first secure authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals. Furthermore, AEDPA took away from the Supreme Court the power to review a court of appeals's denial of that permission, thus placing final authority for the filing of second petitions in the hands of the federal courts of appeals.

The one year statute of limitations on habeas claims is very detrimental for those who might be wrongfully convicted. Particularly when DNA comes to light that might clear the inmate. Rarely can it be discovered within one year.

The restrictions on successive petitions is also bad.

I suggest we find them. Soon. And what's the waiting period? My views were only solidified.

Who are these cooler heads? Are they the gun makers? The NRA? The Demreps? Who? It looks like Cho's act pivoted heavily on the decision made by a gun store owner and a pawn shop owner. Is that who we want vetting our gun sales? It would seem to me that gun shops should be one of the highest priority entities with access to records that would screen out customers with documented histories of violent behavior, as this kid had. This is just one example of the swiss cheese regulation of firearms in this country. Sometimes the solution is as simple as locking a cockpit door.

Stupid country.