SCOTUS Slaps World Court and Bush

[alsaqr]

It is a really putrid situation when the US government comes down on the side of a murderer, the Mexican government and the World Court. I gotta puke.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080326/wl_afp/usmexicojusticecourticj_080326010709

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US state courts need not comply with International Court of Justice (ICJ) decisions, even if the US president orders them to, the US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in the case of a Mexican sentenced to death.

The Hague-based ICJ on March 2004 ordered trial revisions in the United States of 51 Mexicans sentenced to death, because they had not been timely informed of their right to consular assistance.

One of them, 33-year-old Jose Medellin -- convicted of raping and murdering two teenagers in Texas in 1993 -- demanded Texas courts acknowledge that the omission pointed out by the ICJ warranted a retrial.

President George W. Bush, exercising his prerrogative in applying international treaties, ordered state judges to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether any of the 51 Mexicans merited a retrial.

While some states complied with his order, Texas judges refused to examine Medellin's appeal on grounds they were not bound by ICJ decisions nor by presidential orders on the principle of separation of powers.

The Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of Texas' magistrates.

"We conclude that neither (the ICJ) nor the president's memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations," Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court's opinion.

Bush "has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them," he added.

"We're disappointed with the decision," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

 

[Rumble]

"We're disappointed with the decision," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino

Of course they are; unless I'm reading it wrong, while they might not be upset that the ICJ cannot bind our own court systems, it's a crystal-clear statement that, furthermore, the executive branch cannot tell the judicial branch what to do.

 

[JerryM]

I have been disappointed in Bush in the area of giving up our sovereignty. Hooray for the Supreme Court.

Jerry

 

[Cougfan2]

While I supported GW in his first term, I won't shed a tear when he leaves office. His pandering to Mexico has cost this country dearly.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

The Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of Texas' magistrates.

Any bets on which three dissented? I wonder to what extent their dissent leans toward the ICJ having jurisdiction in the US court system.

 

[BullsEye10x]

God bless TX for standing their ground!

 

[ilbob]

Of course they are; unless I'm reading it wrong, while they might not be upset that the ICJ cannot bind our own court systems, it's a crystal-clear statement that, furthermore, the executive branch cannot tell the judicial branch what to do.

I have read several articles about this case, and it seems to hinge mostly on whether a treaty is self executing or not, whatever the heck that means.

What I understand from other commentary is that if the treaty had been worded differently, the SC might well have sided with the ICJ.

 

[chrlefxtrt]

Ugh. Maybe that Ron Paul guy has the idea (I never thought I'd say that btw).

 

[alsaqr]

"Any bets on which three dissented?"


Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter dissented.

 

[freddd]

Ibtl

 

[Coronach]

but only just