Whether Article III courts unconstitutionally abrogate their duty to interpret the federal Constitution when deferring to state courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

The capital case of Kayle Barrington Bates raises a question of national importance: Whether Article III courts unconstitutionally abrogate their duty to interpret the federal Constitution when deferring to state courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In particular, did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit apply an overly burdensome standard of review by refusing to acknowledge the national debate amongst reasonable jurists about whether AEDPA deference violates Article III of the United S tates Constitution when denying Mr. Bates ’ application for a COA, despite the previous split decision based on AEDPA deference in this case, the granting of COA in related cases within the same Circuit, and where other federal circuits have granted a COA and extended briefing on the same issue ?