PDA

View Full Version : The Supreme Court Stands Alone


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

felixthecat
April 1st, 2008, 04:08 PM
The Supreme Court Stands Alone

by Thomas P. Kilgannon (more by this author)
Posted 04/01/2008 ET

Dulles, Virginia -- The World Court got a whoopin last week when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Medellin v. Texas, which involves Jose Medellin, a death row inmate convicted of rape and murder of two teenage girls in 1993. Writing the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts informed the wig-wearing jurists at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Texas courts are under no obligation to obey the ICJ’s ruling to give Medellin a new hearing.

Medellin is a gang member and a Mexican national. When he was arrested for, and confessed to, his heinous crime, authorities failed to inform him of his right under the Vienna Convention to notify the Mexican consulate. He found his way to the World Court with 50 other Mexican nationals who claimed a similar fate.

On March 31, 2004, the ICJ unanimously ruled that the United States violated Medellin’s rights and ordered the U.S. to “provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence.” The UN court informed the United States that its judgment was “final, without appeal and binding on the Parties.” Guess again, said the Supreme Court.
...

Medellin is a case in point. When the ICJ issued its ruling, President Bush caved -- not to international authority, but to international opinion. “I have determined,” the President wrote to the Attorney General, “that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice...by having State courts give effect to the decision.”

(Thankfully conservative Justices didn't cave in. Bush appointed them.)
...

“Our Framers,” Roberts reminded us, “established a careful set of procedures that must be followed before federal law can be created under the Constitution -- vesting that decision in the political branches, subject to checks and balances.”

In other words, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

The sovereignty of the United States shall not be infringed. It is so ordered.

(Thank you Chief Justice John Roberts !)

More here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25784

SummerSailing81
April 1st, 2008, 04:47 PM
Thank God for Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, & Alito. Finally, people with brains and morals on the Supreme Court!!! Let's happy dance :yeah

heybales219
April 1st, 2008, 06:05 PM
I heard this on Lou Dobbs the other night and was surprised their hasn't been more discussion/support of it. Oh that's right, because we're all about gloom & doom, we tend to overlook the small little victories that God gives us. :doh

OnceWasLost
April 1st, 2008, 07:52 PM
And there is no difference between the parties? Let's see, how do you spell J-U-D-G-E-S? :doh Oy!

Dee
April 1st, 2008, 08:00 PM
Good. Now if only they would settle once and for all abortion and the Second Amendment (pro-life and pro-gun).

frodo82801
April 1st, 2008, 08:05 PM
Hillary or Obama appointed judges will reverse this.

Who were the 3 fools who voted with the internationalists? Ginsberg. Breyer. Souter.

Bush was seriously wrong on this one and some in the media are reporting it a bit gleefully because they consider it a slap in Bush's face.

felixthecat
April 1st, 2008, 11:11 PM
And there is no difference between the parties? Let's see, how do you spell J-U-D-G-E-S? :doh Oy!

Can you explain why Bush appointed conservative judges and sided with the International Court of Justice, and the U.N.? This destroys the sovernity of the U.S.. No, there is very little difference between the two parties.

Cloud Watcher
April 1st, 2008, 11:25 PM
:yeah :thumb :woo :woohoo

OnceWasLost
April 1st, 2008, 11:56 PM
Can you explain why Bush appointed conservative judges and sided with the International Court of Justice, and the U.N.? This destroys the sovernity of the U.S.. No, there is very little difference between the two parties.

Ya, Bush said we should honor treaties we make. He is wrong about whats best for us, but he is in a bad place diplomatically, what would he say?

There is a major difference between them in who they will appoint, if nothing else.

sophie
April 2nd, 2008, 12:24 AM
Can you explain why Bush appointed conservative judges and sided with the International Court of Justice, and the U.N.? This destroys the sovernity of the U.S.. No, there is very little difference between the two parties.

Maybe Bush knew how the S.C. would vote. Maybe, by him giving into the ICJ, he tried to show them he was "playing along," "trying to be fair." Can HE help it if OUR laws (Constitution) superseed other international laws/treaties we have signed:idunno.

I think Bush comes out not thumbing his nose at the international community, yet we still win. Maybe this was his plan all along:idunno.