Posted on 07/07/2011 5:05:55 PM PDT by Kartographer
A Mexican national was executed Thursday for the rape-slaying of a teenager after the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a White House-supported appeal to spare him in a death penalty case where Texas justice triumphed over international treaty concerns. Humberto Leal, 38, received lethal injection for the 1994 murder of Adria Sauceda. She was fatally bludgeoned with a piece of asphalt. Leal was pronounced dead at 6:21 p.m. EDT (2221 GMT).
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
God Bless Texas!
...and with that death, dozens, if not hundreds of Texans will NOT be murdered. We will never know the names of these people, and they will never know it...but they will live their lives fully, raise their children, enjoy their grandchildren, and be part of the Texas Experiment...while their would-be killers think a bit harder and decide it’s not worth the risk.
Why, for Illegals know, now, that we mean business and that a sitting president, a former president, and God knows who else have NO POWER to stop us from enforcing our law (at least as long as we own the Court).
So, the Obama/Holder regime is NOT fearful of retailiation from Mexico regarding “Fast and Furious”?
Funny how “conservatives” are pro-life and pro-death penalty. While liberals are pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
All of you are a bunch of hypocrites... either you are pro life or your are pro death. QED...
Seems to me those of the religious sorts among us, would view it differently... Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed...
I recall a story about the Pharisees who brought a woman that was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”.
I think Jesus was simply exposing the hypocrisy nicely when he said it...
“”Can you imagine the storm that would have ensued if Obama stepped in and commuted this killer’s sentence from death to life in prison?”
POTUS only has pardon power over federal prosecutions ... “
It’s like the FG is just the 51st state, and Bummer is governor of it. Don’t ever think POTUS has say over all things in America.
Just wish.
Yes, it was a 5-4 vote along the usual ideological lines.
Time for an amicable separation. How can those who voted to stay this rapist/murderer’s execution be my countrymen?
...unfortunately, for me (and I think for the Republicans), this just about makes Perry a lock for the presidential nomination.
Still....it's horrible to know both G.Bush and Obama tried to prevent this from happening.
Go Texas! “Fast-Lane ‘em!”
Next !
Thank you. I just read similar on another thread of same topic.
Wow....I think I am starting to like Perry.....Big Balls in Cowtown and a big FU to the UN and BHO
Yes! Let’s celebrate the execution of someone. These first several posts are disturbing. I’m all for the death penalty, but really, a celebration? This just proves the left’s point.
We don't believe that 17 years is long enough to thoroughly review the case? What was keeping you?
LEAL GARCIA v. TEXAS
Per Curiam cerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12 (Judgment of Mar. 31), in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention by failing tonotify him of his right to consular assistance. His argument is foreclosed by Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491 (2008) (Medellín I), in which we held that neither the Avena decision nor the President’s Memorandum purporting to implement that decision constituted directly enforceable federal law.
552 U. S., at 498–499.
Leal and the United States ask us to stay the executionso that Congress may consider whether to enact legislation implementing the Avena decision. Leal contends that the Due Process Clause prohibits Texas from executing him while such legislation is under consideration. This argument is meritless. The Due Process Clause does not prohibit a State from carrying out a lawful judgment inlight of unenacted legislation that might someday authorize a collateral attack on that judgment.
The United States does not endorse Leal’s due process claim. Instead, it asks us to stay the execution until January 2012 in support of our “future jurisdiction to review the judgment in a proceeding” under this yet-to-be enacted legislation.
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2–3, n. 1. It relies on the fact that on June 14, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced implementing legislation in the Senate with the Executive Branch’s support. No implementing legislation has been introduced in the House.
We reject this suggestion. First, we are doubtful that it is ever appropriate to stay a lower court judgment in light of unenacted legislation. Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be. In light of Medellín I, it is clear that there is no “fair prospect that amajority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous,” O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U. S. ___, ___ Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 3 Per Curiam (2009) (slip op., at 2)
(BREYER, J., in chambers), and our task should be at an end. Neither the United States nor JUSTICE BREYER, post, at 1–6 (dissenting opinion), cites a single instance in this Court’s history in which a stayissued under analogous circumstances.
Even if there were circumstances under which a staycould issue in light of proposed legislation, this case would not present them. Medellín himself sought a stay of execution on the ground that Congress might enact implementing legislation. We denied his stay application, explaining that “Congress has not progressed beyond the bare introduction of a bill in the four years since the ICJ ruling and the four months since our ruling in [Medellín I].” Medellín v. Texas, 554 U. S. 759, 760 (2008) (per curiam) (Medellín II). It has now been seven years since the ICJ ruling and three years since our decision in Medellín I, making a stay based on the bare introductionof a bill in a single house of Congress even less justified. If a statute implementing Avena had genuinely been a priority for the political branches, it would have been enacted by now.
The United States and JUSTICE BREYER complain of the grave international consequences that will follow from Leal’s execution. Post, at 4. Congress evidently did not find these consequences sufficiently grave to prompt its enactment of implementing legislation, and we will follow the law as written by Congress. We have no authority tostay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” post, at 6, presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.
Finally, we noted in Medellín II that “[t]he beginningpremise for any stay . . . must be that petitioner’s confession was obtained unlawfully,” and that “[t]he UnitedStates has not wavered in its position that petitioner was not prejudiced by his lack of consular access.”
554 U. S., 4 LEAL GARCIA v. TEXAS Per Curiam at 760. Here, the United States studiously refuses to argue that Leal was prejudiced by the Vienna Conventionviolation, contending instead that the Court should issue a stay simply in light of the possibility that Leal might be able to bring a Vienna Convention claim in federal court,regardless of whether his conviction will be found to be invalid. We decline to follow the United States’ suggestion of granting a stay to allow Leal to bring a claim based on hypothetical legislation when it cannot even bring itself to say that his attempt to overturn his conviction has any prospect of success. We may note that in a portion of its opinion vacated by the Fifth Circuit on procedural grounds, the District Court found that any violation of the Vienna Convention would have been harmless. Leal v. Quarterman, 2007 WL 4521519, *7 (WD Tex.), vacated in part sub nom. Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F. 3d 214, 224–225 (2009).
The applications for stay of execution presented to JUSTICE SCALIA and by him referred to the Court are denied. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus isdenied.* It is so ordered.
—————— *
Then why did not Jesus save the two criminals next to him while on the cross?
A win-win-win-win.
A piece of human garbage disposed of, and a thumb in the eyes of “international treaty concerns”, Barack OFraudo, and Jorge Bush.
The Catholic joke is that as soon as he finished saying this, a single stone whizzes out from the crowd and plonks the woman square on the nose.
And Jesus shouted, "MOMMMM! Cut that out!"
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.