be.Listening patiently to the 7 a.m. drivetime prattle in San Antonio, Texas. Ready to talk about Medellín v. Texas, set for oral argument today in D.C.
As we've posted, the Supreme Court's considering whether President George W. Bush overstepped when he ordered state courts to enforce the International Court of Justice judgment in Mexico v. United States (Avena) (2004) by means of "review and reconsider[ation]" of the cases of Medellín and 50 other Mexican nationals condemned to death without being told of their right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to call their consulate for help with their defense. Phrased another way, the question's whether Texas' highest criminal court was in the right when, citing judicial independence, it told Bush that he was wrong. A fascinating mix of questions of state, national, and international law.
The intro line to the Texas interview? "Sovereignty at stake."
1st words out of the radio host's mouth? The gory details of the crime for which Medellín's been convicted, gang rape and murder of 2 young women when he was 18. Establishing spin for the rest of the interview, the account reminded of the frame in which even the most ordinary criminal cases often are presented to the public.
Gist of the questions? Where do these international courts come off thinking they can tell us (read U.S.) what to do? The answer, that the ICJ's a court on which the United States insisted in 1945, and that what's at stake is whether the United States can keep its promises, did not seem entirely welcomed.
Final question added a note of immigration to the already heady law & order/sovereignty stew. It went something like this: Bush's made a habit throughout his presidency of refusing to go along with international law. Isn't his backing off here about nothing but politics with Mexico?Interview over, here's a question: What can IntLaw types do to stake a claim to America's heartland?
