"Reality_Check©" wrote in
news:650aejF2e1psaU1@mid.individual.net:
>
> "Deadrat" wrote in message
> news:yJtGj.6011$6H.1752@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> jl wrote in news:1d2bf6cf-3a37-4ea5-a0aa-
>> 18faebfaa25f@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 7:29 am, Chemical Ali wrote:
>>>> The hopes of hundreds-of-millions of people worldwide were probably
>>>> dashed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling March 24 that
>>>> rebuffs Bush and World Court powers in a Texas death case.
>>>>
>>>> Since the U.S. is NOT a member of the ICC, chances are good that
>>>> Bush and his criminal cabal can't be summoned to the world body to
>>>> answer charges of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. It further means our WAR
>>>> CRIMINALS could escape ANY punishment for their illegal, immoral,
>>>> and failed-but-sorrowfully-bloody IRAQ WAR.
>>>>
>>>> So these evil outlaws will probably escape both impeachment by your
>>>> gutless U.S. Congress, and deserved trials before any global
>>>> committees of concerned and ouraged human beings. It's no secret
>>>> why the Bushies "declined" U.S. membership in such bodies as the
>>>> ICC; they knew and know they have committed criminal acts.
>>>>
>>>> Is there NO way Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Rove, Feith,
>>>> Wolfowitz, Bremer, and Franks can receive condign punishment?
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> "Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court"
>>>>
>>>> "Powers Limited in Texas Death Case"
>>>>
>>>> By Robert Barnes
>>>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>> Wednesday, March 26, 2008; A01
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court yesterday issued a broad ruling limiting
>>>> presidential power and the reach of international treaties, saying
>>>> neither President Bush nor the World Court has the authority to
>>>> order a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a
>>>> foreign national.
>>>>
>>>> The justices held 6 to 3 that judgments of the International Court
>>>> of Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S.
>>>> courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order that courts in Texas
>>>> comply anyway does not change that.
>>>>
>>>> The decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a
>>>> rebuke to the government in a case that involved the powers of all
>>>> three branches of government, the intricacies of treaties and the
>>>> international debate over the death penalty.
>>>>
>>>> It placed the president on the side of Ernesto Medellin, a brutal
>>>> murderer, and the rulings of the World Court, and against the
>>>> authority of his home state's courts.
>>>>
>>>> Texas's high court had rejected the World Court's judgment that it
>>>> "review and reconsider" Medellin's conviction because he is a
>>>> Mexican national and was not advised after his arrest that he could
>>>> meet with a consular from his country, as the Vienna Convention
>>>> requires.
>>>>
>>>> Even though the administration disagreed with the World Court's
>>>> decision -- and has withdrawn from the international pact that gave
>>>> it force -- Bush nonetheless issued a memorandum ordering the Texas
>>>> courts to rehear Medellin's case.
>>>>
>>>> But Roberts wrote that neither the Optional Protocol of the Vienna
>>>> Convention nor the operative part of the United Nations Charter
>>>> creates binding law in the absence of implementing legislation from
>>>> Congress.
>>>>
>>>> And he wrote that the government had not made the case that Bush
>>>> had the power to issue a directive that "reaches deep into the
>>>> heart of the state's police powers and compels state courts to
>>>> reopen final criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable
>>>> state laws."
>>>>
>>>> Joining Roberts were the justices who are most consistently
>>>> conservative: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas
>>>> and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
>>>>
>>>> Justice John Paul Stevens concurred, but for different reasons than
>>>> Roberts gave. Stevens agreed that Texas could not be forced to
>>>> reconsider the case but urged it to do so nonetheless, especially
>>>> because its failure to advise Medellin of his rights "ensnared the
>>>> United States in the current controversy."
>>>>
>>>> Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had
>>>> misread the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which says
>>>> properly ratified treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land"
>>>> and that the treaties at issue did not need to be implemented by
>>>> congressional legislation. "As a result, the nation may well break
>>>> its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word
>>>> and Congress has done nothing to suggest the contrary," Breyer
>>>> wrote. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H.
>>>> Souter.
>>>>
>>>> Roberts said to accept Medellin's argument would make World Court
>>>> decisions not only binding domestic law but also "unassailable."
>>>>
>>>> Bush's intentions -- to ensure reciprocal observance of the Vienna
>>>> Convention with foreign governments, protect international
>>>> relations and show a commitment to international law -- are
>>>> "plainly compelling," Roberts wrote. "Such considerations, however,
>>>> do not allow us to set aside first principles."
>>>>
>>>> Frederick L. Kirgis, a professor of international law at Washington
>>>> and Lee University, said he was surprised that the court was not
>>>> more deferential to the president.
>>>>
>>>> "It is a matter of diplomacy, after all, and the president is the
>>>> chief diplomat, and he has acted," Kirgis said, adding that the
>>>> reaction of other governments, especially Mexico's, is "certain to
>>>> be negative."
>>>>
>>>> The Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry said it regretted the court's
>>>> decision and its lawyers are reviewing the implications for "other
>>>> Mexican nationals facing death sentences, in order to determine
>>>> immediate legal actions to preserve their rights."
>>>>
>>>> The case involved Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals who have
>>>> been convicted in U.S. courts.
>>>>
>>>> Medellin, 33, has lived in the United States since he was 3; he
>>>> speaks and writes English but is still a Mexican national. He was
>>>> part of a gang that attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth
>>>> Pena, 16, as they walked home from a friend's house. They were
>>>> .d and murdered, one strangled with her shoestring.
>>>>
>>>> Medellin signed a waiver of his Miranda right to remain silent and
>>>> confessed within hours of his arrest. But he was not told of his
>>>> right to talk to the consulate of his country. Medellin did not
>>>> raise that right during his trial but did in one of his death
>>>> penalty appeals.
>>>>
>>>> The administration first argued against Mexico, and then in 2005
>>>> Bush issued his memorandum to the attorney general saying that the
>>>> United States will "discharge its international obligations . . .
>>>> by having state courts give effect to the decision" of the World
>>>> Court.
>>>>
>>>> White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush was disappointed
>>>> with the decision and is reviewing it to see how it might influence
>>>> international relations.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR200...
>>>
>>> Jeessssusssss. This is a case in which the states try accused
>>> criminals for state crimes under state law, and inflict state
>>> punishments when the accused are convicted. The feds have no right
>>> or power to pre-empt state prosecutions or to bind the states in
>>> international treaties with the United States, on matters of
>>> violations of state laws. WTH is wrong with you people?
>>
>> You're incorrect about treaties -- they're part of the supreme law of
>> the land and they trump state law.
>
> Tell it to the Native American Nations you delusional utopian.
So Andrew Jackson didn't follow the law. It may be cold comfort to
Native Americans, but states are not authorized to avoid US treaty
obligations. |