Breaking: Supreme Court rules against illegal alien Death Row murderer (and stupid Bush administration), upholds US sovereignty
This is very good news. Congrats to the state of Texas, which had to fight the open-borders lobby and the Bush administration all the way to the high court to prevent international law from superseding American sovereignty:
President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.
In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.
Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.
An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country’s consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.
Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court’s rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president’s declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.
The president may not “establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law,” Roberts said.
Andy McCarthy summed up the bottom line on this case last fall:
At bottom, the case is about the freedom of Texans to govern themselves, to put sadistic murderers to death if that is what they choose democratically to do, as long as they adhere to American constitutional procedures in carrying out that policy choice. Sure, it offends Mexicans, Europeans, international law professors, and a motley collection of jurists who see themselves as a supra-sovereign tribunal. But that is not a basis for the President to interfere.
The administration has made a great show of promoting democracy. Democracy, however, begins at home.
Don’t you forget it.
***
SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Deniston has more:
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984). Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules. The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said. And the World Court ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added.
The ruling also is a defeat for 51 Mexican nationals who won a World Court decision in 2004, finding that U.S. states had denied them their consular access rights and advising the U.S. government to take steps to enforce the ruling. In the specific case, Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin, sought to rely on both the World Court decision and the Bush memo to reopen his case, claiming that he was never given access to any Mexican diplomat while his case was going through Texas state courts.
The Bush Administration did not agree with the World Court ruling, and, in fact, withdrew from the international protocol that gave the World Court the authority to enforce the Vienna Convention. Even so, Bush issued a memo in February 2005, agreeing that the U.S. would seek to obey the World Court, and he told the states involve to “give effect” to that tribunal’s decision. The case thus came to the Court as a major test of presidential authority, in seeking to enforce treaty obligations, to override contradictory state criminal procedure rules. In that test, the presidency clearly lost.
The opinion will be posted here. Transcript of the oral arguments from last fall is here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Breaking: Supreme Court rules against illegal alien Death Row murderer, upholds US sovereignty
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » SCOTUS Rules in Favor of States Right to Execute Illegal Alien Murderers
- Shiny New Supreme Court « Federal Way Conservative
- Chalk One Up For U.S. » Pursuing Holiness
- Big Win For Texas!
- The Court Smacks Bush, Treaty « Axis of Right
- Diggers Realm
- Webloggin
- Theodore's World
- Random-American - News Analysis and the Rantings of an Ordinary Citizen » US Supreme Court upholds national sovereignty over Bush’s wishes
- Michelle Malkin » Hey, World Court: Bug off!
- Michelle Malkin » Illegal alien Death Row rapist/killer’s last-ditch appeal
- Michelle Malkin » Isn’t it ironic: Mexico lawmakers want to reinstate death penalty
- Michelle Malkin » Isn’t it ironic: Mexico lawmakers want to reinstate death penalty
- Michelle Malkin: Isn’t it ironic: Mexico lawmakers want to reinstate death penalty; Plus: Mexico cracks down on illegal aliens |
- Michelle Malkin » Lord Monckton’s warning to America
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration
Legal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine Explodes
Weekly Standard
» Obama's Talking PointsSister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upNewsBusters.org
» Politico: Conservatives Ousted Scozzafava Because She's A WomanWeekly Standard
» Ben Nelson Demands Stupak Language in Senate Bill
Talk about hyperbole.
CC, nice to hear from ya!
Haven’t seen you in a while. Dekine has a habit of “belittling” fellow Conservatives. He also has a habit of forming an opinion about people he doesn’t know. It’s a shame he neither recognizes that or that not all of us share his Goldwater Conservative belief systems.
Unfortunately, CC, Dakine saves his venom for people like rooster, Gabe, and myself (he’s probably derided others?) but treat people like lgm, Rusty, etc. like angels. Where’s the love?
You guys debating the value of the dollar are rather amusing to me. The value of the dollar is only meaningful in the context of what it purchases. The actual value of a dollar is the net present value of the US economy divided by the number of dollars. Of course nobody knows how to actually calculate that at it’s most basic form, that is what the value is. So to say that a strong dollar or weak dollar are anything (good/bad or other) is actually a mis-guided notion. The only notion that really holds water is what is the value of our economy.
“I do understand. I think we’re caught in a Catch-22 here. The decision protects our sovereignty…at the expense of our Constitution. I would prefer what was until quite recently the status quo”
WHAT!
Thanks Regulus, I had the Reader’s Digest version in #173…
That carries moronicity to a whole new level. I take it that this blog does NOT ban people merely for being stupid.
Yes, I just coined the term “moronicity”. Neccessity was the mother of invention.
The problem is still government intervention. The variation of interest rates isn’t being caused by the market, it is being done by the Federal Reserve (yes, I know they aren’t technically part of the government – but they act like one) in response to the market. Not the same thing. And far from cushioning the fluctuation, the acts of government seem in most cases to aggravate them. Think Smoot-Hawley. I’m not claiming that the government should just go away and let everybody trade as they see fit. Government doesn’t work like that. Even if ours did, others wouldn’t, so the imbalance would persist. Still, the market, by its very nature, works efficiently, and every action of government, no matter the intent, affects that efficiency.
Where is Ann Coulter when Rusty needs her?
She is a constitutional lawyer who’d set YOU straight if she didn’t flatten you first.
The issue is…..this illegal criminal is on death row for RAPE and MURDER.
Someone just shoot him so the trolls will shutup.
More from the decision:
You’d be hard pressed to find a government anywhere in the world which does not interfere in its economy much more than ours does. China comes to mind as a notable example. So calls for government non-intervention in America are a triumph of theory over reality.
I know the theory. I just question its relationship to the real world.
For instance, was the market working efficiently in the dot-com bubble? The real estate bubble?
Great post Regulus. Thanks.
emjem, not sure I ever had anything to say to rooster. Demagogues piss me off, so I call out Gabe and you when the occasion arises.
I mean, if the Supreme Court ruled that treaties don’t have enforcement provisions unless another law is passed, then it goes without saying that the very nature of enacting treaties has changed dramatically because now the House is involved. That was certainly not the Framers’ intent.
Which is why I understand how they got this point while still thinking it’s wrong.
dakine
My memory goes back a long ways, and I don’t recall this ever being the conservative position. It’s not even a Goldwater-conservative position.
flenser, to what position are you referring?
Flenser, you can call me all the names you want, but three justices as well as at least one author of the SCOTUS blog seem to agree that the case was not properly decided.
I think I underestimated you when I said reasonable people could respectfully disagree.
“because now the House is involved. That was certainly not the Framers’ intent”
WHAT!
RUSTY Please READ! I will keep informing you in incremeants beacuse you couldn’t possibly understand If I gave all this in one fell swoop!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,
“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED
The framers made it very clear!
Good Lord, now the left is fretting about the “Framers’ intent”!
Which means the law is what? Sorry, I didn’t hear you, speak up.
You are not a reasonable person. You know what you want (centralized power safely out of the reach of the stupid voters) and you will follow any paths, no matter how contradictory, to get there.
dakine
The “libertarian on social issues” position.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is that not identical with “the liberal position on social issues”? The last time the GOP was liberal on social issues was when it was liberal on every other issue as well.
Yes the market was working efficiently – the very definition of a bubble is that of a distortion of the market, generally caused by outside forces and the natural and normal reaction of the market is to correct it – which is exactly what happened. Remember, during the dot-com bubble, all of those people grabbing internet stocks were convinced that they were receiving fair value for their money. They were wrong, but that’s nobody else’s fault but their own for not conducting basic research. All of the current actions by the government and Federal Reserve are intended to PREVENT the market from working, i.e. correcting the imbalance in prices. Will it work? I don’t know, and I doubt that they do either. They are reacting to a political situation, not an economic one – which is one of the problems with government intervention.
Regulus –
Well said! And if you go through the facts of this case, you can understand why the Supreme Court did not directly address the issue of Constitutionality.
I would just add one thing – what this case was really about was the Bush Administration’s attempt to force Texas to comply with a ruling by an international court concerning Texas’ criminal process.
The International Court ruled that the failure to advise Medellin of his access to consular officials was such a substantive defect that a new trial was in order. It is significant to note that medellin, in addition to the other 50 petitioners to the International court, were all death penalty cases.
Texas did everything in accordance with the protections available to citizens of the US and the state of Texas. There was no violation of the defendant’s 4th or 5th amendment rights, no violation of procedural or substantive due process and no appealable issues of either fact or law.
Yet, the International Court decided on its own that consular access was some sort of “fundamental and substantive die process right” that voided the Texas crinimal process.
Medellin was not prejudiced by his lack of access to consular officials. Had he been in contact with them, the Mexican Consulate would not have been able to intervene in the proceedings anyway. Medellin received the same constitutional protections and rights afforded to citizens of the US. There was no prejudice based on the fact that he was a Mexican national.
The federal government does not have the authority to substitute the decisions of an internaitonal tribunal for those of a legally constituted court.
As to a treaty that supports such a result, any such treaty would effectively cause state and federal courts to submit to the decisions of a foreign power. Medellin committed murder, a crime under the laws of the State of Texas. Mdedellin received a trial and was sentenced in accordance with all substantive and procedural requirements of both federal and state law. The death penalty, incidently, has been found by the Supreme Court to be a matter exclusively within the discretion of the states.
Really? All current government actions (and presumably past government actions?) are intended to PREVENT the market from working?
And given the markets efficiency, how does it get into such an unbalanced state to begin with?
That is, how did the markets get into the position where the government felt the need (via pressure from various people) to get involved at all?
I’m curious to know which outside forces you think were responsible for the dot-com bubble. It looks to me like the markets made that mess all on their own.
Good point, but its wide of the mark.
As origionaly intended the Senate was made up of direct representatives of the STATEs. They were chosen by State Governments, and would take direction from the State Government… thus, the States used to have some say on Treatys…
Now? They don’t. Senators do NOT represent the State Government, but their Constituent voters… big difference.
Also, I don’t think the Framers ever envisioned a case where an “International Court” could override a State Court.
Key here is it sounds to me from how it is written, that the order of importance would be
1. Constitution
2. Fed Law, which had to be in line with the Const…
3. Treatys… which had to follow Fed Law, and thus the Constitution.
Problem is that there is NO mechanism for the Courts to even review a treaty to see if its in line with Law and the Constitution, UNTIL some treaty obligation if enforced on someone, who thinks it is not Constitutional.
This is exactly what happened… Congress overstepped and didn’t Vet things correctly… did not cover themselves in Federal law, and therefore the Treaty is not enforceable.
Remeber, the Supreme Court has NO authority to start any cases. They can’t review a law or treaty until someone is hurt by it, and it wends its way through the Court system.
“Problem is that there is NO mechanism for the Courts to even review a treaty to see if its in line with Law and the Constitution, UNTIL some treaty obligation if enforced on someone, who thinks it is not Constitutional.
This is exactly what happened… Congress overstepped and didn’t Vet things correctly… did not cover themselves in Federal law, and therefore the Treaty is not enforceable.
Remeber, the Supreme Court has NO authority to start any cases. They can’t review a law or treaty until someone is hurt by it, and it wends its way through the Court system.”
Your partially correct…..
1 congress had nothing to do with it
2 Bush overstepped his boundries which therefore made Texas challenge
3 Texas had to challenge in SC which ruled in it’s favor as it should have
4 back to #2 Bush should have NOT overstepped his authority therefore it wouldn’t have been necessary to put in front of the SC and waste taxpayer money.
Actualy, no, it was Congress who screwed up.
When they apporved the treaty, they should have put into Federal Law a requirement to add a line to the Miranda warning… about a Foreigner having the right to contact their Embassy.
If they had? This situation never would have happened. So yes… Congress did not do their job.
From my rudimentary understanding of economics, markets that are free and FAIR work the best for the economy and for society.
(Always in the back of my mind…political freedom does not exist in the absence of economic freedom.)
However, SOME regulation/oversight/control would appear to be needed in some instances.
Otherwise, what recourse would consumers have if, say, one or a few huge companies controlled all, or virtually all, of food, water, clothing, housing, transportation, communications, energy (yep, I understand we’re just about right there with the oil companies), etc?
Remember, if there is a monopoly or near-monopoly situation, consumers do NOT HAVE an alternative; do NOT HAVE a walk-away position from the negotiation…in such instances, the monopolist has the consumer by the “short and curlies”. (Please excuse the metaphor; no offense intended.)
If the consumer has no alternative to the monopolist’s price, is that a free and fair market?
What should one be expected to do if one cannot afford the monopolist’s price for food, water, clothing, and shelter, for example?
?Die?
Attack, and kill, if necessary, the monopolist, and take what is needed to survive?
People being people, and thus imperfect, some oversight/control/regulation would appear to be needed in monopolistic or near monopolistic situations, for society’s sake; otherwise, the monopolist, unhindered, would just continue to grab as much as possible, with no benefits going to the other party; in fact, the other party would just be ground down worse and worse.
Where the market is in no way free nor fair, SOME regulation is needed.
Where there is no monopolistic or near-monopolistic situation, and where the market IS free and fair, and the consumer has other options; then government should leave the market alone.
The question in the cases where regulation is needed would seem to be: how to ensure that the regulation is “neutral”, in the sense of creating a fairer, more free situation (market) for all parties concerned; rather than simply giving one side too much power at the expense of the other, which is what the regulation would be trying to remedy in the first place.
In other words, politics should be kept out of regulation as much as possible.
Whew!
Apologies, folks.
The Ernesto Miranda case wasn’t until 1963 how did Congress screw up in 1776?
Devil’s advocate:
American tourist in some country. Said tourist is completely innocent in every way. Said country arrests tourist for an alleged crime. American Embassy consulate is refused audience with tourist, citing Texas.
Now what?
Let’s be clear on a few points, shall we:
1. You’ve engaged not only Gabe but rooster either directly or indirectly
2. You call out those you feel make controversial comments that don’t pass your “litmus test”
3. You make assumptions about a person’s character and political ideology when the need arises
4. You tend to castigate fellow conservatives who don’t share your Goldwater Conservative belief structure.
Let me know what I’ve missed. I would hate to have made an unfair assumption about you… I’ll give you the luxury you never afforded me.
Sigh… being obtuse on purpose?
“When they apporved the treaty, they should have put into Federal Law a requirement to add a line to the Miranda warning”
As I said, WHEN THEY APPROVED THE TREATY!
And I might add, this is some of the language in why the Supreme Court overturned this, because Congress did not enact the appropriate Federal Law.
False example. These folks never ASKED to see their Consulate. The whole thing was that they were not informed they had that right!
The “right” was never denied… it was never asked for.
So? What makes you think “said country” cares about the law to begin with?
And other countries are free to make their own laws, just as we are. That’s kinda what being a country is all about. If they want to presecute American visitors, Americans will stop visiting.
And if America EVER starts cracking down on illigeal aliens, then maybe they will stop coming here. Law and order … what a concept!
Sigh. Such is the problem of trying to debate in sound bites. No, not ALL actions of the government – just those bearing on the current real estate “crisis”, like massive interest rate cuts. And the markets are efficient, in the aggregate, but that doesn’t mean they can’t get out of balance in some areas given the complexity of economic activity involved. The dot-com bubble was (as I recall, I haven’t done any research or investigation on this at all) caused by many factors, some market driven, some not, but mainly by a lot of people who were trying to get rich quick on the Internet buildout. The old saying that a fool and his money are soon parted doesn’t in any way discredit the free market. The bubble collapsed, as bubbles do, when reality set in, although the proximate cause was the Federal Reserve (again), which was following a deliberate policy of causing a contraction in the market, i.e. bursting the bubble.
As far as the real estate bubble is concerned, much of the problem was essentially caused by the government, specifically via their attacks on financial institutions for “redlining” – that is, refusing real estate loans to poor credit risks (which tended to be disproportionately minorities). So they came up with inventive ways to loan money to these poor risks, while still attempting to safeguard their capital. The result was ARMs, low/no equity loans, etc. Of course, the problem with lending money to poor credit risks is that a certain percentage of them are going to default. The theory was that the value of the properties would continue to rise forever (remember the dot-com bubble?), so the banks could take the properties back, resell them and regain their money, or make even more profit on the transaction. It looked good for the borrowers, who were proceeding under the assumption that interest rates would stay low forever, and also, because they also expected property values to increase indefinitely, they figured they could just refinance when the rate adjustments hit. Once again, their mistaken assumptions are not a reflection on the efficiency of the market. When they were shown to be wrong, the market (once again, being the aggregate of all associated financial activity) in due course began to correct. Real estate values on especially the coasts had been pushed up by demand and low interest rates (once again, manipulated by the Fed). When interest rates moved up, demand collapsed, and so did the valuation house of cards. People with ARMs found that they could no longer refinance at an advantageous rate, and in many cases found that their properties were no longer worth what they’d paid, so they were shut out of refinancing in any case. The rate adjustments hit, and many were priced out, or since they had no equity in the property, simply walked away. The subsequent actions of the Fed and proposed action by Congress are once again just based on politics and not economics, and the results are anybody’s guess.
An incomplete exposition, but time and space are limited.
Whew. Well, I agree with part, I disagree with part, and part just got rained out. But I have other fish that have to be fried. Enjoyed the discussion.
Good for Texas, and good for the SCOTUS; Now fry the b@st@rd, and throw his stinking corps to the dogs. They need some red…err, chared meat every now and then.
“Sigh… being obtuse on purpose?
“When they apporved the treaty, they should have put into Federal Law a requirement to add a line to the Miranda warning”
As I said, WHEN THEY APPROVED THE TREATY!
And I might add, this is some of the language in why the Supreme Court overturned this, because Congress did not enact the appropriate Federal Law.”
And that has to do with everything I have posted the the treaty is meaningless no matter what was written.
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,
“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.
The president may not “establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law,” Roberts said.
Miranda or no Miranda!
Oh and he was given his miranda rights upon arrest! This is about being given a diplomat from his country to speak to!
We’ve butted heads in the past granite, but that was a great post…can’t say I disagree with anything you said.
emjem, fair enough. If you’re game, let’s start fresh.
flenser, your last response to me raises a couple of implications which don’t make logical sense to me. First, you seem to imply that one cannot be a conservative unless he or she is conservative on social/cultural issues. I think quite a few conservative writers, commentators, pundit, academics, etc. would be pretty surprised to hear this. In fact, Sen. Goldwater considered himself to be by and large a libertarian on social issues. By your measure, only members of the Christian right could rightfully be considered conservatives. Second, you also seem to imply that libertarian = liberal. You can’t really believe this can you? There are some social issues where libertarians and liberals come down on the same side of things, but for entirely different reasons. Regarding social issues, liberals want a “nanny state” and cultural conservatives want a “daddy state”. Libertarians want “no state” wherever possible.
Yes you did. I just thought that seeing how the case found its way to the Supreme Court might help to focus the discussion a little better on the legal issues as opposed to the Constitutional debate that’s been taking place here.
I’ve been trying to think of a way that the ICJ’s decision in Avena could’ve been enforced to (1) sidestep Medellin’s failure to preserve the convention-based argument at trial, and (2) override the Texas rules prohibiting multiple habeas corpus appeals, and (3) deal with the fact that the treaty confers no individual rights for appeal in any event.
And I’m not having any success.
If the Vienna Convention contained self-executory language that would allow the ICJ to jump in as an ersatz appeals court, to nullify state laws in favor of its own dictates, and to force rehearings or new trials based on what amounts to a technicality, it’s hard to imagine any president so foolish as to even submit such a treaty for ratification or the Senate ratifying it.
Likewise, I suspect that even a donkey-controlled Congress would balk at creating Federal legislation opening the door for foreign court demolitions of state law in the manner that the ICJ tried to impose its will in Avena.
This is why I say we shouldn’t over-estimate the impact of the Court’s decision in this instance. The way it framed the issues, how it could have reached any other decision than the one it did is hard to imagine.
What’s more troublesome to consider is why the Bush administration thought it could, or should, attempt to abet the ICJ’s attempted interference with American domestic criminal law – especially considering the ease with which the Court swept away their thinly-based legal arguments.
And what’s most sobering of all is that there are three Justices who see nothing wrong with what the ICJ and the administration tried to do. Two more like them, and we’d be getting a very different outcome in this case.
So you’re admitting that the US doesn’t care about the law? Why are we assumed to be better than every other country when we’re the ones breaking the treaty?
#234 Don’t be suprised by the 3 justices that didn’t see a problem.
Ginsburg and the biggest offender O’Connor have made many a decision on International Law for this country which in itself is unconstitutional. HMMMM what would France do? LOL!
Rusty the US cares about enforcing its own laws within OUR Constitution.
#237 On March 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm, xler8bmw said:
“…the US cares about enforcing its own laws within OUR Constitution.”
Wow, was #235 a leap of illogic to a strawman, or what?!
#238 I give up on rusty
#202, #216 txvet2,
Believe me, I’m for free trade and lassez-faire government. Nixon said it best when he said something to the effect that the government should only do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves.
The government doesn’t always get it right, but can you imagine the collapse that we would have had if the Fed hadn’t dropped rates after both the dot com and real estate bubbles? Remember that consumer confidence is part of the equation and when people see big companies that have been around for years go belly up and notice that they are all in the same industry, they’ll head for the hills and take their money with them.
Rusty, dude, just stop. Okay?
You can side with the three wrong justices that nobody likes if you want, just stop trying to make it out to be anything other than a victory for sovereignty.
This a great victory for states’ rights. The only question remaining is regular or extra crispy?
Gee, isn’t sending an un-uniformed invading force of 12 million or so breaking the treaty??
But to take the high road we really should invite the diplomats to the execution.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the Fed hadn’t precipitated both collapses by raising interest rates? Of course, I’m not arguing against all regulation. Somebody has to protect the investor and consumer from predators. I’ve simply been arguing from the standpoint that the market works most efficiently when government stays out of the way. It just isn’t in the nature of governments to do that.
Pssst, txvet2… wrong thred
Seriously, are you guys still trying to reason with Rusty? The guy who GPS’d his fecal deposit for the world to see?
You can’t reason with that. You just can’t.
No, you just haven’t read the whole thread. See #241.
Rusty,
Us hayseeds down here in Texas don’t want to stir up international trouble. Since notifying the Mexican Counsular Officials wouldn’t have made a lick of difference in the trial or its outcome, we will indeed notify them just to make things all warm and fuzzy – after the sentence is carried out. Satisfied?
I have now read the text of the decision, where I learned that the Texas law in question revolves around blocking petitioners from filing endless serial briefs and arguments in the apparent hopes of eventually getting a desired verdict or release. It is the process and not the merits of this consular notification thingy [which might / might not have had an impact if included in the trial or initial appeal]. That changed my perspective considerably.
#247 On March 25th, 2008 at 8:21 pm, fourstringfuror said:
“Seriously, are you guys still trying to reason with Rusty? The guy who GPS’d his fecal deposit for the world to see?
You can’t reason with that. You just can’t.”
Exactly!!!
Good for Texas!
This peek into the mind of the moonbatus Americanus was brought to you by Trusty Rusty.
Come, now, fourstringfuror #247, you can’t judge the eficacy of a commenter’s comments by how he conducts himself outside the office of commenting.
What Rusty does behind grown bushes should be of no concern to the rest of the commenting community. It doesn’t make him any less of a blogger. Right? I’m sure no one ever came along and stepped in it, anyway, so it’s no big load.
Besides, it depends on what your definition of the word cr*p is, now doesn’t it.
/sarc…?…
I thought it was bad enough seeing so many people take the Rusty bait when I first checked in this morning. I could hardly believe he was still being fed this evening.
You guys do understand he relishes the opportunity to be contrarian, don’t you? Ideology aside, the man wakes up every morning, checks email, and comes here to stir up trouble and wait for the inevitable retort.
Once again, Rusty has managed to hijack another thread.
With that, I bid you all a good night. Even Rusty.
On March 26th, 2008 at 12:17 am, fourstringfuror said:
I thought so too, but sometimes it’s just too hard to resist.
I know it is, DB. I know. I’ve been guilty myself. I realized one day, though, that no DC liberal who defecates on public property is worth debating
#257 On March 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, fourstringfuror said:
“I know it is, DB. I know. I’ve been guilty myself. I realized one day, though, that no DC liberal who defecates on public property is worth debating ”
Amen to that.
Exactly, fourstring.
BTW, it was you who put me on to the worthlessness of this troll’s comments by directing me about a month or so ago to his website and his proud, public, disgusting, “look what I did” figurative hopping-up-and-down posting.
I will do my best from time to time to inform other commenters here at MM about this Troll; so that, eventually, we all can have even more reason to cyber-knowingly roll our eyes to each other when this clown/troll emerges, and spouts his drivel.
And, maybe, next post I’ll tell you how I really feel….
I have my own reservations about capital punishment but, as you correctly point out, that isn’t the issue here.
Which international community is that? The one that hates us so much they’re willing to break the law and risk their lives to come here? Or the ones who can’t get enough of American culture? Or is it the one that perpetually has its hand out looking for some cash?
Sarcasm aside let’s grant your premise and say the “international community” hates us. Why exactly should we give a crap? We have to do what we think is right, not what we think is popular.
Right on cue there’s the moral equivalency card. A Mexican who breaks the law here is given legal representation, a transparent trial and who knows how many appeals. Americans abroad are often subjected to “legal” systems that fall far short of what we consider due process. There is a huge difference there. The idea that a country like Egypt or Saudi Arabia would act differently but for this precedent is laughable.
Wow, a Liberal that misunderstands the Constitution. I’m shocked.
The Federal government is empowered to enter into treaties that involve the powers of the Federal government. It cannot legsilate for individual states. If this animal had been held by the FBI I think he’d have a case, but he was held in Texas so the state’s law applies.
And before you try to tell me I’m wrong or crazy I’ll point out that a majority of USC Justices agree with me.
No, the disgrace is the number of citizens we have who are eager to surrender our soverignty to the “international community”. As imperfect as our legal system may be it’s still the most open, fair and transparent one on the planet. If you really think it can be improved by listening to the Chinese and Saudi Arabians you have to be crazy.
#259 James Felix:
Well said!
That’s a very well-stated post James, and for the most part, very civil and restrained. The kind of response that makes this site worth visiting.
I do what I can, brah. I deal with these people in real life every day, and I’ve learned that, like beating your head on a brick wall, debating a liberal leaves you with a headache, and nothing is accomplished.
How about all those American children kidnapped by their foreign born parent and taken back to places like Saudi Arabia, where they are forced to stay due to the laws there, despite the fact that they are American citizens, and were taken against court directives?
How about criminals that those countries won’t extradite because we have a death penalty?
Thank you Michelle for this update, this is so excellent.
dakine
I notice that you don’t name even one. And no, you cannot be a conservative unless you are conservative on the “social issues”, as you libs like to call them.
Not in the sixties and seventies he didn’t. He got more liberal later in life. I’m surprised that an Olde Tyme conservative like you is not aware of this.
Don’t be silly. I offered no “measure”, and I don’t believe that only members of the “Christian right” (who keep you awake at night in fear) can be considered conservative.
But you have yet to make a comment here which indicates that you are anything but a moby.
Bush is the back-stabbing traitor, this case has proved him to be.