Robin Vander Wall
It is a procedural issue. That’s why so many people appear to misunderstand the outcome. When the Court entertains a petition, it is doing so within the context of the legal question(s) presented. The legal question before the Court in Snyder was this: Was the Sixth Circuit’s opinion regarding Ex Post Facto as it applied to the law and facts presented below correct or incorrect? At first, the Court was not exactly sure, apparently. So, the Court asked for the Solicitor General’s opinion. The Solicitor General supplied a brief in which he exhaustively articulated all the reasons why he felt that the Sixth Circuit reached a sound and constitutionally correct conclusion. Thus, the Court saw no error in the Sixth Circuit’s opinion to correct. And the petition to “correct” it (as the state of Michigan wanted the Court to do) was rejected.
So, it doesn’t really matter very much what I personally see or don’t see. What matters is the way the Court operates and there’s nothing anyone of us can do about that.