Justices back Texas in dispute with Bush

[The Spartan]

The Link

Justices back Texas in dispute with Bush
President overstepped authority in case of Mexican national, court says
The Associated Press
updated 10:06 a.m. CT, Tues., March. 25, 2008
WASHINGTON - President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.

In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.

Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.

An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he 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.

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.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. A foreign national is arrested for a crime. He's duly convicted (we'll assume) and then punished for said crime, in this case executed. Now, why does he not get access to officials from his country's consulate? Because the local or regional government doesn't feel like it? I sure as shit would expect to get to speak to the American consulate if I were in trouble in a different country.

[Raesene]

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.

I thought the federal govenrment represents and speaks for each individual state in international affairs and the states have to accept that ?

[Glocksman]

There's a lively discussion about this over at the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog.

I sure as shit would expect to get to speak to the American consulate if I were in trouble in a different country.

First, you'd have to tell them that you were an American.
Going by the facts one of the posters over their laid out, he didn't tell them he was Mexican until it was too late.

I admit to being a Texan and thus bias, but I don't understand this notion that other countries should feel free to backlash against American citizens and especially Texans for treaty violations. Let's look at this particular case closer, shall we.

Medellin was conducting a gang initiation on US soil. Two girls, not associated with the gang, were in the proverbial wrong place at the wrong time, which happened to be US soil. These teenage girls were kidnapped, sexually assualted, and murdered by Medellin. A few days later, Jose Medellin was arrested, told his rights as a US citizen, and brought to jail where he wrote a written confession to the crime. During his trial and sentencing, he made no objections about not being given additional rights as a non-US citizen. He was convicted and sentenced based on the fact he committed a heinous crime.

Why did Jose Medellin not object? Because no one questioned his citizenship. He also never provided evidence of his Mexican citizenship prior to trial, which would have prompted officials to inform him of his rights to speak to his consolate. When Jose Medellin finally did object, his objection was reviewed by the appellant courts in Texas. His objection was overruled and his request for a new trial denied. The Texas process worked like it would in any other state. His objection didn't merit a change in his conviction and sentence, because the objection had no bearing on the evidence and the finding of fact.

I'm my laymen view, the SCOTUS is simply acknowledging that the state court followed due process with proper judicial review of state and federal laws. The administration is trying to invoke laws of an international treaty that would require a change in federal law.