Posted on 10/10/2007 1:21:47 PM PDT by processing please hold
Edited on 10/10/2007 1:23:57 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The U.S. Supreme Court's hearing of the case, Medellin v. Texas, has reminded the American people of President Bush's terrible tendency to put the foreign interests of Mexico above those of the United States. But the case, being heard on October 10, is significant for another reason. It demonstrates the dangers of passing global treaties and getting involved with international courts and tribunals. The Senate should remember this lesson as it ponders ratification of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, which creates an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and various "dispute resolution panels" that will inevitably rule and act against the U.S. The Senate could vote on this treaty shortly and the odds are that it will pass unless the American people voice their objections immediately and vociferously.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
Does anyone know what effect a SCt decision against the state of Texas will have in this case? Will that put the murderer in jail for life? Will it allow him to go free? Will the state have to try him again? Given the amount of time that has passed since this crime it may be difficult to try and convict again. Hopefully that won’t be necessary. Wish there was some way for Texas to enforce its laws regardless of what the esteemed international “court” says. Bush is a real disappointment on this one.
It’s not the country we grew up in that’s for sure.
A most excellent post. I agree with you. How those poor girls families mush feel. And now getting slapped in the face by our president
Looks to me like Cheney is nowhere to be found these days.
I have seen his wife on Fox today!
No need for armor-unless it's your cooking.. LOL< We're just having spaghetti, garlic bread and a salad. Easy supper for me tonight.
Many are starting to see Bush in a very different light since his '04 reelection.
Let us not be down on Bush, he is a leader at war.
And we have supported him all the way haven’t we? How come then after the American people rose up and spoke so loudly the immigration bill failed that the President STILL is trying to push it through? What about us????? What about what WE want????? It’s NOT ABOUT HIM....
Also, now intervening for this wanton animal killer. What about the family of these girls? Huh? What about their loved ones who are still grieving and always will? What about them? We are at war yes...but those families of those tortured murdered girls are in hell every single day of their lives knowing what happened to their daughters. Sorry....being at war has NOTHING to do with this...NOTHING. President Bush should be ashamed to be intervening in this case. He should be out there supporting the death penalty and letting the process play out like it has in so many other cases in Texas. This is shameful, disgusting and as low as he has gotten.
We support our troops. We DO NOT SUPPORT our President for intervening in the final outcome for this perp who so blatantly crucified these two girls.
Let us NOT LET DOWN these girls who were brutally attacked and murdered. THAT should be the rallying cry!!!
God bless their souls and may these girls rest in peace. God bless the families and may they find peace and comfort
Damn the attacker and may he go where it is hotter than hell!
I knew what it was I just didn’t understand it in relation to the topic.
The argument that is being made at the Supreme Court by the administration is that this is about executive power, that the President needs to be able to act to prevent state governments from interfering with international treaties. Here is a summary from the argument:
With cross-currents of constitutional and international law flowing freely, what appeared to be a majority of the Justices looked askance at a Presidential memo in February 2005, directing nine U.S. states to give 51 Mexican nationals convicted of crimes in those states a new chance to test their rights under an international treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. What was troubling those Justices the most, it seemed, was that the President had sought to make binding a ruling by the World Court that would otherwise not have controlling effect on states’ ciminal procedures. . .
This is not a Court (with a couple of exceptions among its members) that is genuinely fond of drawing meaning for American law from foreign sources. That skepticism found new expression in the Medellin case as several of the Justices looked at the World Court as a foreign entity that, through the President’s intervention, was intruding into domestic law — perhaps even at the expense of the Supreme Court’s power to say what the law is. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, said he saw a constitutional problem with “giving an international body the authority to determine U.S. federal law. I am rather jealous of that authority. I don’t know on what basis we allow an international court to decide the content of American law.” . . .
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement tried, without notable success, to deflect such suggestions. All that President Bush had done in the Mexican nationals’ case, Clement contended, was to make a decision that, for foreign policy reasons, America would comply with the World Court decision to give the Mexicans another review of their cases in state court. . .
The hearing did highlight a difference between Medellin’s lawyer and Clement, even though they are on the same side. Clement stressed that the government did not support Medellin’s argument that, without the President’s action, the World Court decision would be binding on the state courts in the U.S. “The President’s role is critically important,” the Solicitor General argued. When Justice Kennedy asked about the effect had the President decided not to comply with the World Court decision, Clement responded: “We would be on the other side.” Clement added that “we don’t think this judgment is enforceable on its own terms.”
I am not saying I am agreeing with the argument Bush is making, but it does seem there is a broader issue than just thumbing his knee jerk support for the Mexican government.
Bush is a real disappointment on this one.
In sad agreement.
No it's not. :(
Wasn’t it? I don’t know how ANYONE who read the article can even think any way except death penalty. To those who have not read the article...go do it. Find it and read it. Read it all. See what happened to those two girls. Read how it was them against the group who attacked them. Read. Read. Read. Read what they did. I cannot imagine anyone reading it and not being totally enraged and physically ill. The only punishment is to put this animal to death where he will never have an opportunity to do this to anyone again. Nice guy huh? All those guys against two girls? Nice guys. Strong guys. Brave guys...oh yeah. Too bad they didn’t go up against some strong, really good all around good guys and fight. No, they picked on two innocent young woman, raped, tortured, murdered and then kicked them to death too and strangled them. This is one of the most disgusting, horrendous crimes I have ever read about. The fact this case has to even be discussed says a lot about where we are in this sick, pathetic world. The fact our own President has intervened makes me even sicker and more ashamed than ever. God help them all.
Everything you have said is right on.
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen hide nor hair of him in a while.
Is that sign really posted on a public highway?
I was thinking that the other day. Where the hell is Dick Cheney?
Hey Dick, speak out!
But it is fake but accurate It may have been "shopped"
Your response reveals a rather parochial view of things. But that is to be expected.
HAHAHA, how long did you surf DU before you found that? *rolls eyes*
The original ruling, as I understand, was for the courts to review the whole trial(s), meaning they were convicted using evidence that should not have been introduced (confession) because they were not read their full rights. They were Mirandized but not Viennized(? I know, not a real word, yet). The defendant scum would get new trials, and it has been 14 years since the monsters did this despicable crime.
That isn’t just setting aside the sentence. This is asking for a whole new trial.
Now that we really need him!
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.