[Tennessee Nana]

Oh how jack booted of me...

again I say the Medellin case was never tried in the World Court...

[Yosemitest]

You can NOT understand the WORD "AGAINST" !
Read it again, DUMMY.
The World Court was TRYING to get DOMINION THOROUGH the Medellin v. Texas IN the United States SUPREME COURT !
HOW DENSE CAN YOU GET ? ! !

"Ted Cruz, who won cases ....against the World Court. ..."

this is not true...

the Medellin case was never tried in the World Court..."

IT IS REVEALING WHAT YOU LEFT OUT, TO TWIST MY WORDS INTO A LIE.

Or Ted Cruz, who won cases before the Supreme Court protecting
gun rights, religious freedom and AGAINST the World Court. ...

Look what I found:

Ted Cruz, a Republican, represents Texas in the Senate.

... In the 2008 case Medellin v. Texas, which I argued as solicitor general of Texas, the high court upheld U.S. sovereignty
and prevented the president from using a treaty to overrule the Texas judicial system.
The central questions in that case were:
one
could the World Court use a treaty
to order American courts to reopen final criminal convictions;
and, two,
could the president order state courts
to submit to the World Court's authority?

Texas argued that the answer to both questions was no,
and the Supreme Court agreed, 6 to 3.

...If the Supreme Court concludes that a treaty can be used to prosecute Americans,
regardless of their constitutional rights,
the ramifications could be alarming were these treaties to be ratified:


• Nothing would stop the United Nation's Arms Trade Treaty from being used to vanquish Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
  
  
• Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
  U.S. businesses could be subject to the decisions of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea based in Hamburg, Germany,
  rather than the rulings of American courts.
  
  
• The Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities could allow
  decisions on how to educate a child with disabilities to be made by foreign tribunals
  rather than by the child's parents.

... It is the province and duty of the Supreme Court to interpret U.S. law.
No treaty should abdicate this decision-making power to another authority.

In Medellin v. Texas, the Supreme Court rightly defended U.S. sovereignty and upheld the structural limitations on government power, which serve to protect individual liberty in the United States.

...

So now,

YOU SHOULD APOLOGIZE
FOR TRYING TO TWIST MY WORDS
INTO A LIE !