WORLD COURT AND THE PRESIDENT REBUFFED

Good for the U.S. Supreme Court. Last month, the court ruled 6-3 that the President had no right to order the States to abide by a ruling of the International Court of Justice (World Court) which required the retrial of 51 Mexican nationals who had been sentenced to death in our courts without having been advised of their right to seek and obtain assistance from the Mexican consulate.

In my blog, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSICE MEDDLES IN OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS (10-19-07), I was very critical of the World Court's interference in our criminal justice system. When we signed the 1963 Vienna Convention, which requires the U.S. to abide by the World Court's decisions, we never foresaw the possibility of that court injecting itself into any of our domestic issues.

The case before the Supreme Court involved the death sentence of Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, who had been convicted of the 1993 brutal rape-murder of two Houston teenaged girls. At the time of his arrest, Medellin was not advised of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate as required by the Vienna Convention.

In 2003, Mexico went to the World Court on behalf of Medellin and 50 other Mexican citizens who had been sentenced to death in the U.S. without having been advised of their right to seek consular assistance. Although their guilt was never in question, the court ruled in Mexico's favor and ordered that the 51 Mexican death row inmates be retried because they had not been advised of that right.

In response to the World Court's decision, President Bush ordered the States to hold new sentencing hearings for the condemned Mexicans. It was the Medellin case which the State of Texas chose for its appeal of the President's order. Texas was joined before the Supreme Court by 28 other States. Mexico filed a brief before the Court and was joined by 12 other Latin American countries as well as by most European nations.

The majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the President was wrong in ordering the States to hold new sentencing hearings because the World Court had no right to impose its will on the sovereignty of the United States. Justice David Souter and the court's most liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

There are those who claim this decision will harm Americans arrested outside of the United States because other countries may retaliate by denying our citizens the right of seeking U.S. consular assistance. I believe that claim is nothing but a red herring. There are already a number of countries which do not extend that right to our citizens or to citizens of any other country for that matter. I doubt they will be joined by others, and that includes Mexico.

In effect, the Supreme Court has told the World Court to butt out of our domestic affairs. The real reason Mexico was joined by other Latin American countries and by the Europeans is that, over many years, all of them have condemned us for imposing the death penalty. But that is our business and not any of their damn business!!!