Thread: "World Court" vs. Texas

Apparently the issue is not settled as Mexico and the ICJ disagree, and we wouldn't be having this debate. Change is coming in the world, the US is more resistant to it than other states but it cannot hold back the tide forever.

Unless Mexico intends to use military force then the issue is settled. The SC, the top court, held the ICJ has no binding power here. It's done.

I don't appreciate the language, but all I am saying is there are consequences of this action that should be thought through.

Like I said who gives a ****, the consequences of murdering and raping two teenage girls is death in Texas. As far as Mexico; what are they going to do, stop illegally coming here?

And Canada complained about it, and Texas has a history of violating the rights of non-citizens, but hey life goes on.

SOB got justice. He deprived two innocent girls of their rights and got a fair trial and appeals.

This is sad. One person seems to be arguing from a thoroughly legal point of view and all the other "debaters" are swearing and huffing and puffing and running in circles around the topic without admitting that something wrong was done and ignoring questions where the situations are reversed.

This is sad. One person seems to be arguing from a thoroughly legal point of view and all the other "debaters" are swearing and huffing and puffing and running in circles around

The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, held that the ICJ has no binding power in America - that is the legal outcome to this issue. It's done the bastard is going to die for his crimes under Texan law.

Saying Mexico/ICJ don't agree is utterly meaningless as the SC did not find that they had power. Thus they are not a party with any relevance here. They can huff and puff all they want, it don't matter.

As for Mexico's response, who cares? They ain't going to do a damn thing but whine that a Mexican murdering rapist illegal alien gang member is going to be put to death for raping and murdering two teenager girls. So yeah who gives a **** about what they think and their hurt feelings over a Mexican criminal paying the price for two murders?

We are an independent nation and are not going to surrender our power to a foreign court.

Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court - washingtonpost.com

The justices held 6 to 3 that judgments of the International Court of Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S. courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order that courts in Texas comply anyway does not change that.

Roberts said to accept Medell¿n's argument would make World Court decisions not only binding domestic law but also "unassailable."

He was part of a gang that attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pe¿a, 16, as they walked home from a friend's house. They were raped and murdered, one strangled with her shoestring.

Even though the administration disagreed with the World Court's decision -- and has withdrawn from the international pact that gave it force

We are an independent nation and are not going to surrender our power to a foreign court.

You have already done it by signing the Vienna Convention. Fine, next time, don't whine about the Vienna Convention being violated when an American is assigned the death penalty in China and China refuses to let him meet American embassy officials.

You have already done it by signing the Vienna Convention.

U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases
Foes of Death Penalty Cite Access to Envoys
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A01
U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases (washingtonpost.com)

In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by gamercube

This is sad. One person seems to be arguing from a thoroughly legal point of view and all the other "debaters" are swearing and huffing and puffing and running in circles around the topic without admitting that something wrong was done and ignoring questions where the situations are reversed.

It's not reasonable for you to excoriate someone simply because they have a better understanding of the U.S. government than you do.

1) Mexico complains to ICJ.
2) ICJ (international body with no real power) tells Texas (sovereign State within a sovereign state) what to do.
3) Texas tells them to go get stuffed.
4) ICJ complains to the U.S. President (Executive Branch).
5) Prez tell Texas to do what ICJ says.
6) Texas tells Prez to go get stuffed.
7) Prez complains to SCOTUS (Judicial Branch).
8) SCOTUS tells Prez to go get stuffed.
9) Texas prepares to send message that it's a Bad Idea to murder people in Texas.

Everyone had their say. No mobs with torches and rope, no refusals to parley. It's all written down in my little pocket U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

And because you brought it up, what situations have been reversed? Which American nationals have been executed for murder that we complained about?

-dale