Some sharp headlines in response to sharp SCOTUS habeas limits

The US Supreme Court's ruling earlier this week in Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, No. 20-1009 (S. Ct. May 23, 2022) (available here), provides still further evidence that a significant majority of Justices are quite eager to limit and cut back on federal habeas review of state convictions.  That reality surely helps explain why some of the early commentary about the ruling, at least as judged by headlines, is notably sharp.  Here are just some examples: 

From The Daily Beast, "The Supreme Court Just Said That Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough"

From HuffPost, "The Supreme Court Just Made It More Likely Innocent People Will Be Executed"

From The New Republic, "The Supreme Court Decides Death Row Prisoners Don’t Deserve Competent Lawyers"

From Salon, "Legal experts: Clarence Thomas’ “radical” ruling forces innocent people to stay in prison"

From Vox, "The Supreme Court just condemned a man to die despite strong evidence he’s innocent"

Though I am troubled by where the Supreme Court seems to be heading with its recent habeas jurisprudence, some of these headlines strike me as a bit too sharp.  For somewhat more measured accounts, here are two other notable blog perspectives on Martinez Ramirez:

From Crime & Consequences, "Taking Statutes Seriously"

From SCOTUSblog, "Conservative majority hollows out precedent on ineffective-counsel claims in federal court"