Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Supreme Court Will Hear Medellin Case

I'm not talking about the notorious Medellin drug cartel. I'm talking about Jose Medellin, the gang member sentenced to death for his confessed role in the gang-rape and murder of two Houston teenage girls in 1993.

I'm in the middle of reading Medellin's brief to the Supreme Court right now, and I just wanted to throw out something that may very well be answered later:

Medellin's brief is discussing, at length, the "International Court of Justice," and its ruling which supposedly mandates American courts' review of the trials and sentences of 51 Mexican nationals. The brief seems to state that, because it was started by treaty, it is entitled to "supreme law of the land" status.

Fine. Okay.

But it can't supercede the Constitution. Because treaties are on a par with "acts of Congress," that means they are subject to the same standard of judicial review as those acts.

Which brings me to my point:

Isn't the ICJ, as it applies to the American court system, completely and utterly void based upon the fact that it seeks to set up a court which is higher in stature than (and thus able to review the decisions of) our own Supreme Court?

Something to think about.


I address the following to our Supreme Court:

Regarding the argument that the President's Directive was merely an attempt to "faithfully execute the laws," I would remind you that a President's Directive that any member of the Judicial Branch do anything, without following proper channels, is a blatant and terrible violation of our Constitution's separation of powers.


From the Respondent's (Texas) Brief:

"...the Presidential Memorandum surely reflects the President’s genuine desire to "reaffirm[ ] the United States commitment to the international rule of law.” U.S. Br., at 4. However, a laudable goal does not give the President unlimited power to act beyond his constitutional authority. As the Court has recognized, “the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 187 (1992)."

Good stuff.


Carrie said...

You're a dork Aggle. I used to be a dork, then I became a lazy 3L. Maybe I'll be a dork again next year. A professional dork like you and it will be awesome!

Aggle said...

I'm not a dork. I like justice. I dislike the U.N. I intensely dislike Mexico, particularly its pick-and-choose attitude as to which treaties it will support from week to week.

The only absolute, unequivocal consistency in Mexico's position as to treaties with the U.S. is that they believe the treaties only apply to the U.S.

The Mexican government (if it can even be called that) disgusts me on a fundamental level.

But what disgusts me even more than that is that we haven't yet told that backward, vile and worthless government to take its demands and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

I certainly hope the Supreme Court doesn't sell out our national sovereignty, and the independence of our judiciary, to a Mexican government that's only, in this case anyway, interested in protecting the apparently extra rights we've now (according to their argument) got to afford someone who:

1. Doesn't have the decency to follow our most basic of laws regarding citizenship; and then

2. Decides it'll be a gas to orally, anally, and vaginally rape two girls, and then brutally murder them so they can't identify their attackers.

If this were about Constitutional rights, it'd be different. But it's not.

This monster was afforded EVERY single Constitutional right that is afforded to actual citizens of this country.

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty. Personally, though, I think for this particular piece of human excrement, it's letting him off easy.