CE Week #7: “Chief Justice Prolongs Executive Powers Debate”
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 11, 2007; A08
When a case involves the power of the judiciary, the authority of the World Court, the role of Congress in enforcing treaties and the ability of states to ignore a direct order from the president, even the nine justices of the Supreme Court need more than an hour.
So Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told the attorneys to keep arguing — and fellow justices kept pulling out copies of the Constitution and peppering the lawyers with questions — long after the arguments in a complex case known as Medellin v. Texas were scheduled to come to an end yesterday.
The case began with a horrific rape and murder committed by Jos¿ Ernesto Medell¿n and others in 1993. But it has moved far beyond Texas’s death row to complicated questions about whether the president or an international court has the power to determine the rights U.S. courts afford criminal defendants.
Roberts was one of several justices who seemed skeptical of the deference owed to the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court. He asked Medill¿n’s lawyer, Donald F. Donovan: If the Supreme Court thought a World Court ruling preempted federal law, “We would have no authority to review the judgment itself?”
Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, saying he has a constitutional problem with giving an international body such power. “I am rather jealous of that authority,” Scalia said. “I don’t know on what basis we can allow some international court to decide what is the responsibility of this court, which is the meaning of the United States law.”
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 51 Mexican nationals in nine states, including Medell¿n’s, receive “review and reconsideration.”
The Bush administration first argued against Mexico, then President Bush in 2005 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 Bush’s directive exceeded his authority, and to give Medell¿n an additional hearing would violate the state’s judicial procedures.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer were most supportive of Bush’s desire to comply with the guarantees of treaties and the ruling of the international court.
“The United States gave its promise,” Ginsburg said. “It voluntarily accepted this jurisdiction. It didn’t have to.”
Breyer pulled out a copy of the Constitution and read a portion that said state judges must comply with U.S. treaties — “I guess it means, including Texas.”
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who joined Medell¿n’s side, distanced himself from the argument that the treaties alone would mean the court must follow the World Court’s directive. The president’s agreement with the World Court is the “critical element,” Clement said.
But Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz said Bush had no authority to issue a memorandum ordering a state court to do something its laws do not authorize — in this case, another hearing for Medell¿n.
The lively debate drew in all the justices, save Justice Clarence Thomas, who maintained his customary silence. At one point, the fray grew such that Justice John Paul Stevens asked Cruz to clarify a point — and then asked colleagues not to interrupt until Cruz finished.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/12/ce-week-7-chief-justice-prolongs-executive-powers-debate/trackback/
Well this seens to be a complex problem with a simple answer. The state just needs to listen to the government. Like the article said that it is stated in the constitution that state judges must comly with U.S. treaties. It is that simple. If they don’t not comply it would only make our nation look bad. We would be disregarding a very important treaty and many countries would frown apon that. Not to mention that it totaly makes our country look like it can’t function properly when a state wont listen to the national government. Plus it is only right of us to try to fix the problem since when he was arrested he wasn’t fully aware of all of his rights and how to use them. At this point it is not a matter of wether or not he is guilty because he obviously is. Right now we just need to figure out how he is going to be punished. I think that we should just adhear to the treaty we signed so no ones toes are being stepped on. Bush mighthave gone about this situation wronge by trying to just boss around the states and try and make them listen. But he was just trying to get the problem solved according to the treaty and the constitution.
The problem seem to be that Josi Ernesto Medellin’s lawyer say that his murder case of two girls in Tex@s in a World Court affair. I disagree. He has lived in the country since he was three and has contributed to our society. He joined a gang and committed a murder in probably one of the worst states to do so. He is now on trial to receive the death penalty. The Mexican government thinks that this is against the world law. Mexican doesn’t have a death penalty and so if he were tried there would no be condemned to death.
What the bush administration is worried about is breaking foreign treaties. They signed the Vienna convention, which would give Mexico the right to take their prisoner back to their country. Bush wanted to see what the world court had to say. His own state of Tex@s turned him down saying he did not have that power. And that additional hearing would violate the state’s judicial procedures. This is a weird case where the sates are using their full power against the federal law, but when it comes to foreign ties the federal governments going to win right or wrong.