20
REED v. GOERTZ
Thomas, J., dissenting
(2006). Indeed, Reed conceded at oral argument “that you do not get a stay of execution just because you brought [a Chapter] 64 proceeding or just because you’re in [§]1983 proceedings … challenging the adequacy of the procedures available to you from the state.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 68. Texas is free to take him at his word. But, because the majority undermines vital principles of federal jurisdiction and destabilizes the orderly working of our judicial system, I respectfully dissent.
