lily
03-25-2008, 11:41 PM
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501185.html?hpid=topnews)
Court Backs Texas in Dispute With Bush
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 25, 2008; 3:29 PM
The Supreme Court today said President Bush does not have to power to order
state courts to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national
because of a judgment of the World Court.
The court held 6-3 that judgments of the international court are not binding
on U.S. courts and that President Bush's order that courts in Texas comply
anyway does not change that.
The court's decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a
rebuke to the government in a case that involved the powers of all three
branches of government, the intricacies of treaties and the international
debate over the death penalty.
The case involved the Vienna Convention, but Roberts wrote that the pact
does not give the president the power to "unilaterally make treaty
obligations binding on domestic courts." He said it "implicitly prohibits
him from doing so."
Joining Roberts were the justices who are most consistently conservative:
Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with the outcome, but for different reasons
than Roberts gave.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the court had misread the treaty provisions.
"The court has failed to take proper account of . . . precedent and, as a
result, the nation may well break its word even though the president seeks
to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the
contrary," Breyer wrote in a dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and David H. Souter.
The case involved Ernesto Medell¿n and 50 other Mexican nationals who have
been convicted in U.S. courts.
Medell¿n, 33, has lived in the United States since he was 3; he speaks and
writes English but is still a Mexican national. He was part of a gang that
attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pe¿a, 16, as the girls walked
home from a friend's house. The girls were raped and murdered, one of them
strangled with her own shoestring.
Medell¿n signed a waiver of his Miranda right to remain silent and confessed
within hours of his arrest. But he was not told of his right to talk to the
consulate of his country, guaranteed to those arrested outside their home
countries under the Vienna Convention. Medell¿n did not raise that right
during his trial but did in one of his death penalty appeals.
Mexico, which has no death penalty, went to the International Court of
Justice, and it ruled that the death sentences of the Mexican nationals in
nine states, including Medell¿n's, should receive "review and
reconsideration."
The Bush administration first argued against Mexico, then in 2005 Bush
issued a memorandum to the attorney general saying that the United States
will "discharge its international obligations . . . by having state courts
give effect to the decision" of the World Court.
Bush's home state said no. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said that
Bush's directive exceeded his authority and that to give Medell¿n an
additional hearing would violate the state's judicial procedures.
Stevens said that although there was a "great deal of wisdom" in the
dissent, he concluded the treaties do not authorize the Supreme Court to
enforce the World Court's judgment.
But he said Texas should comply voluntarily with Bush's order "when the
honor of the nation is balanced against the modest cost of compliance."
Court Backs Texas in Dispute With Bush
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 25, 2008; 3:29 PM
The Supreme Court today said President Bush does not have to power to order
state courts to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national
because of a judgment of the World Court.
The court held 6-3 that judgments of the international court are not binding
on U.S. courts and that President Bush's order that courts in Texas comply
anyway does not change that.
The court's decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a
rebuke to the government in a case that involved the powers of all three
branches of government, the intricacies of treaties and the international
debate over the death penalty.
The case involved the Vienna Convention, but Roberts wrote that the pact
does not give the president the power to "unilaterally make treaty
obligations binding on domestic courts." He said it "implicitly prohibits
him from doing so."
Joining Roberts were the justices who are most consistently conservative:
Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with the outcome, but for different reasons
than Roberts gave.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the court had misread the treaty provisions.
"The court has failed to take proper account of . . . precedent and, as a
result, the nation may well break its word even though the president seeks
to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the
contrary," Breyer wrote in a dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and David H. Souter.
The case involved Ernesto Medell¿n and 50 other Mexican nationals who have
been convicted in U.S. courts.
Medell¿n, 33, has lived in the United States since he was 3; he speaks and
writes English but is still a Mexican national. He was part of a gang that
attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pe¿a, 16, as the girls walked
home from a friend's house. The girls were raped and murdered, one of them
strangled with her own shoestring.
Medell¿n signed a waiver of his Miranda right to remain silent and confessed
within hours of his arrest. But he was not told of his right to talk to the
consulate of his country, guaranteed to those arrested outside their home
countries under the Vienna Convention. Medell¿n did not raise that right
during his trial but did in one of his death penalty appeals.
Mexico, which has no death penalty, went to the International Court of
Justice, and it ruled that the death sentences of the Mexican nationals in
nine states, including Medell¿n's, should receive "review and
reconsideration."
The Bush administration first argued against Mexico, then in 2005 Bush
issued a memorandum to the attorney general saying that the United States
will "discharge its international obligations . . . by having state courts
give effect to the decision" of the World Court.
Bush's home state said no. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said that
Bush's directive exceeded his authority and that to give Medell¿n an
additional hearing would violate the state's judicial procedures.
Stevens said that although there was a "great deal of wisdom" in the
dissent, he concluded the treaties do not authorize the Supreme Court to
enforce the World Court's judgment.
But he said Texas should comply voluntarily with Bush's order "when the
honor of the nation is balanced against the modest cost of compliance."