Supreme Court rules against illegal alien Death Row murderer; upholds US sovereignty

Michelle Malkin ^ | March 25, 2008 | Michelle Malkin

[TomGuy]

So that point is not relevant for comparative purposes.

No, it is only irrelevant for propaganda purposes.

Facts are facts. McCain voted for Ginsberg. Ironically, neither of the other presidential candidate did. lol. [Of course, neither of them were in the Senate at the time, but that is only relevant for those who prefer facts over propaganda.]

[Jim Noble]

But see Reid v. Covert, which says that treaties cannot amend the Constitution, violate the Bill of Rights, or extend the powers of the Congress beyond Art II.

Of course, since the world "court" is not an Art III court, as its "judges" are neither appointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate, it cannot issue any rulings which any US citizen is bound to respect.

[plain talk]

So? The whole Senate voted for Ginsberg. Comparative analysis.

[Digital Sniper]

And let's recap how the whole Miers thing went over, shall we?

And then there's the whole knife-in-the-back Gang of 14 affair that you so conveniently glossed over.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

IIRC, the ICJ (International Court of Justice, aka World Court), like Nafta, is not a treaty per se since it was never ratified by super majority of the US Senate. Thus, it is merely akin to typical congressional legislation, which in theory cannot trump state law (unless that bogeyman, “interstate commerce” is involved). You are correct about a super majority Democrat Senate. Many such nightmares would ensue.

[EODGUY]

“A gain, albeit a small one.”

Currently, my standards are such that anything that remotely resembles a gain at this point is cause for celebration.

EODGUY

[plain talk]

comparative analysis.

[mkjessup]

I’d imagine this spoiled Jorge’s plans for the next Cinco de Mayo.

Looks good on him.

[alwaysconservative]

Applause and bows! FINALLY, someone gets it right!

[Digital Sniper]

comparative analysis.

...which means precisely squat when our side is running a socialist.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>President Bush was obliged to uphold the Vienna Convention, which is a treaty and therefore Constitutionally a U.S. law.<<

OK, you say that Bush intervened because he had to uphold the Vienna Convention. But according to the article, Bush "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. Also, "Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states."

Seems like either the article is incorrect, or you are twisting Bush's justification for intervening in Medellin case.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>However, the U.S. never ratified the treaty that created the “world court. President Clinton did sign the treaty, but the senate never ratified. President Bush was free to withdraw the U.S. as a signatory to the “world court,” and he did so in 2002.<<

Good point.

[devere]

A great decision by our great Chief Justice John G Roberts. And look who provided vote #6 in favor: John Paul Stevens!

[PAR35]

This issue goes far beyond getting one in on the illegals, it imperils every American who travels abroad and subjects them to the depravity of every corrupt local official or policeman in about 80% of the worlds second and third world.

Have you bothered to read the opinion yet? (If so, I'd guess that you are in a very small minority on this thread, but based on your comment, I'd guess 'no')

PDF here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf

"In sum, while the ICJ’s judgment in Avena creates an international law obligation on the part of the United States, it does not of its own force constitute binding federal law that pre-empts state restrictions on the filing of successive habeas petitions. As we noted in Sanchez- Llamas, a contrary conclusion would be extraordinary,given that basic rights guaranteed by our own Constitution do not have the effect of displacing state procedural rules. See 548 U. S., at 360. "
(slip opinion at 27)

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

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.

---

THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE!

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

BUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LachlanMinnesota]

So the next clinton president simply reinstates thje protocals for enforcement and then we are back to square one...

[ConfidentConservative]

You are very right! The article said more than once President Bush DID NOT like the ruling of the World Court.

By Bush encouraging this to go all the way to the supreme court sets it firmly, 1. The president CAN NOT over rule the laws of the state. 2.The World Court can not over rule a states law.
A Liberal democrat president will not be able to make it’s own ruling over the states.
This is GREAT NEWS!

[Bob J]

This has been discussed and after relfection the SC set a precedent that may help Presidents avoid pitfalls in the future.

Presidents have the right to sign international treaties, they need to be ratified by Congress. But I think few would disagree that foreignors arrested in foreign lands should have the right to confer with their embassies.

What strikes me is how so many on these threads have turned this into a high five fest because they think they scored one against illegal aliens from Mexico. The question goes far beyond and is far more serious than getting a good slap in on a few illegals.

[ConfidentConservative]

HA! Now that I read down the page a little I find you stated it very very well. Sometimes people only read the first few sentences and miss the most important info.

Great post!