World Court urges U.S. to stay 5 executions

[SpencerH]

The scumbag has been fried! Yeah Texas! Yeah Texas supremes who told the world court and Mexico to go **** themselves!

[Dinner]

Sad day for the rule of law. As Imran said if it was so clear cut and easy then the law should have been followed. The guy would have been executed anyway but international law wouldn't have been put in danger.

[SlowwHand]

The sad day for the law was 15 years ago when 2 young girls were beaten, raped and murdered.
Yes, Imran is right again. He should have followed the law. Texas did.

[SlowwHand]

Just so the last facts are brought up, Texas delayed the execution 4 hours while the U.S. Supreme Court met again. The court decided in favor of Texas.
In his last statement, the murderer again confessed, and added that he hoped his execution would help bring closure for the family.

So Imran and whomever else, enjoy thinking you're right, again. You're as correct as most times.

[PLATO]

Endangering International law?

Yeah....Mexico has such great respect for that!

However, I do think that Imran is right on one thing...this case will hopefully set a precedent.

The federal government needs to be reminded that their powers come from the States and not the other way around. Far to long the feds have made assumptions of power in international dealings. It is good that the SCOTUS has reminded them that they need to work within the framework of the powers that were granted them.

[Lord Avalon]

If the representatives of the States in the Senate approve a Treaty, how are the States not bound by it? Is informing a foreign suspect that he has the right to contact his consulate somehow in violation of the Constitution?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
If the representatives of the States in the Senate approve a Treaty, how are the States not bound by it? Is informing a foreign suspect that he has the right to contact his consulate somehow in violation of the Constitution?

No, I don't think that it violates the Constitution...just that it oversteps the powers granted to the federal government. Just because a Senator represents a State does not give him the power to usurp their soverignty. While the feds clearly have the power to make a treaty, the State also clearly has the power to ignore provisions that usurp its power...and the SCOTUS seems to agree.

[SlowwHand]

The appeal to contact the consulate was 4 years after the sentencing. Governor Rick Perry has already said that even if the consulate had been contacted, it would have changed nothing.

Let this World Court deal with Mexican drug cartels killing all the cops and their families, or the Chinese censoring news and beating protestors at the Olympics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let this World Court deal with Mexican drug cartels killing all the cops and their families, or the Chinese censoring news and beating protestors at the Olympics.

If domestic concerns were part of their jurisdiction they would.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Verto is the only good thing about Texas.

Somebody's got a crush.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by PLATO
Endangering International law?

Yeah....Mexico has such great respect for that!

What a lame comment. I say the US should honor it's international treaty obligations and the best you can come up with is a vague claim about Mexico? What the hell does that have to do with the US following international treaties it has signed?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Sad day for the rule of law.

Given the fact that the law was in fact followed, I'm somewhat confused by this comment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Third, if the convicted is NOT the murder (shockingly it has happened) but is convinced by his lawyer to plead guilty, then he's screwed over without ever knowing his rights.

What are you talking about Imran? Innocent people getting screwed over by the system never happens in Texas.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0606270239jun27,0,6231462.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-000611dptexas-story,0,6102084.story

[David Floyd]

Oerdin, why do you keep talking about the US following it's treaty obligations? This isn't about the US, this is about the State of Texas. The Supreme Court ruled that, even though the federal government ordered Texas to comply with the World Court, Texas did not have to follow the instructions of either the World Court or the federal government.

The US DID follow it's treaty obligations, in that the federal government did everything in it's Constitutional power to stay the executions. It's just that SCOTUS ruled that Texas could essentially do whatever it wanted in this situation. While I think that Texas did the right thing, you can't say that the US violated any treaties, when in fact the opposite is true. And before you say that SCOTUS was obligated by treaty to rule in favor of the federal government/World Court, remember that SCOTUS is bound by the US Constitution, not the World Court or international treaties, except insofar as those treaties are in keeping with the Constitution.

[Dinner]

Just like the Dred Scott Case I'm saying the Supreme Court made a very bad call for obvious political reasons. It was a 5-4 decision straight party line. The US signed a treaty saying it had certain obligations and passed a Federal law telling states they had to honor those requirements. Texas didn't do that ergo Texas is wrong.

It's completely obvious that the right wing justices were squirming for ways to keep these guys on death row despite Texas acting criminally. They practically jumped through hoops to justify it. I'd rather see a hundred guilty guys walk then one innocent man executed especially when it was obvious the state broke international law and Federal law.