The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[Patman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Again though, point out which part of the appeal had merit. It seems like there's a lot of vague complaining about the outcome in this thread, but yet no one can name an actual complaint with the ruling.

And as for the "ratified by Congress" part, further Congressional action is required. This is a fact acknowledged by both sides. The appeal admitted as much, by relying on the possibility that Congress might act in the future based on the fact that one Senator introduced a bill.

You mean it might not have been ratified by Congress?

To be fair, it is hard to resist the urge to kill teenagers, particularly when they speak.

Do you use 40 pound cinderblocks? There used to be a guy who knew how to do that... but you know, Texas killed him against the will of the feelings of the international community.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The guy has been here since he was 2, so it's not like he doesn't understand US law. He told the cops he was an American citizen and it wasn't until later where it came out that he was illegal. Where in this are they supposed to suggest "You have the right to talk to the Mexican consulate in a way that could "have prevented him being put on trial in a capital case" as was the lawyer's argument?

Should we have the police run the nationality of anyone they arrest to make sure they can talk to their country's consuls before they're booked? Because it seems like that's "racist and unconstitutional", not to mention an immense waste of money.

He was defended by a lawyer who had presented in front of the Supreme Court on three occasions and he managed 16+ years of appeals, so it's not like he wasn't give a fair shot.

This is so far down the list of "Give a ****" that it doesn't make the first two hundred pages.

Edit: As far as the treaty is concerned, by claiming to be a citizen of a nation that he isn't, he waived his right to contact the consulate of his actual nation, IMO.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Well yeah, but what happens when an American illegally moves to another country, lives there for a while, rapes a girl with a stick, bludgeons her with some asphalt, and then gets in trouble? What about him? Huh? Didn't think of it that way, did you!

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Well yeah, but what happens when an American illegally moves to another country, lives there for a while, rapes a girl with a stick, bludgeons her with some asphalt, and then gets in trouble? What about him? Huh? Didn't think of it that way, did you!

Does he tell them that he's actually a citizen of Kerplunkistan?

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The guy has been here since he was 2, so it's not like he doesn't understand US law. He told the cops he was an American citizen and it wasn't until later where it came out that he was illegal. Where in this are they supposed to suggest "You have the right to talk to the Mexican consulate in a way that could "have prevented him being put on trial in a capital case" as was the lawyer's argument?

I'd actually suggest that it be added to the standard Miranda warning. Basically, just something along the lines of "If you are not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, you have the right to consult with the consul of your native country." It'd be something that would take maybe one extra minute to say and would completely eliminate any grounds for whining about the U.S. not actually following the treaty.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'd actually suggest that it be added to the standard Miranda warning. Basically, just something along the lines of "If you are not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, you have the right to consult with the consul of your native country." It'd be something that would take maybe one extra minute to say and would completely eliminate any grounds for whining about the U.S. not actually following the treaty.

Again, the U.S. is not obligated to follow the treaty until Congress acts. Neither side denies this.

And you have yet to name an actual problem with the ruling.

 

[Patman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'd actually suggest that it be added to the standard Miranda warning. Basically, just something along the lines of "If you are not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, you have the right to consult with the consul of your native country." It'd be something that would take maybe one extra minute to say and would completely eliminate any grounds for whining about the U.S. not actually following the treaty.

This is starting to become like the various legal labels we have everywhere... at some point you'll have to have a 5 minute speech... and god forbid you goof a word during that speech... all this for a treaty that is not the law of the land in the United States.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, and very much dislike Rick Perry. That said, if the treaty was never ratified by the Senate, then it isn't US law. The president can ask the governor to respect the treaty, but he is under no obligation to do so. It sounds like this guy was garbage and should have rotted in a jail cell for the rest of his life. In my view, executing him was letting him off light, but that's not my call.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

That said, if the treaty was never ratified by the Senate, then it isn't US law.

As I understand it, it was ratified, but the current case law from the courts indicates that Congress now has an obligation to pass law to implement the requirements of the treaty.

And you have yet to name an actual problem with the ruling.

Where did I say I had an actual problem with the ruling? The only thing I have an actual problem with is people blowing the whole thing off entirely as some sort of international law thing we don't need to concern ourselves with.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

As I understand it, it was ratified, but the current case law from the courts indicates that Congress now has an obligation to pass law to implement the requirements of the treaty.

If it's in a treaty that's already ratified, it IS law...I don't get why a court would rule otherwise...

I also believe this case started before this treaty even existed, and unless the treaty is retroactive is excluded from coverage.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Where did I say I had an actual problem with the ruling? The only thing I have an actual problem with is people blowing the whole thing off entirely as some sort of international law thing we don't need to concern ourselves with.

Well, it sort of is. Once Congress implements its requirements, we ought to concern ourselves with it. 'Til then, tough luck.

Here is the bill introduced by Leahy that the appeal relied on. It has a whopping 0 cosponsors. Take it up with them.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If it's in a treaty that's already ratified, it IS law...I don't get why a court would rule otherwise...

I also believe this case started before this treaty even existed, and unless the treaty is retroactive is excluded from coverage.

The treaty is from 1963, so I'm not sure that's true. The governing case here is Medellin v. Texas from 2008. That case said that the U.S. is not bound by a treaty until Congress implements it. (Simplifying, but I think that's the general gist).

Since 2008, a Senate with a large Democratic majority has failed to implement the treaty. Then, Senate with a smaller Democratic majority failed to implement the treaty. A House of Representatives with a Democratic majority has failed to implement the treaty. Then, a House of Representatives with a Republican majority has failed to implement the treaty. In the present House, not a single member has even introduced implementing legislation. 0/435. Take it up with them.

 

[Patman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The treaty is from 1963, so I'm not sure that's true. The governing case here is Medellin v. Texas from 2008. That case said that the U.S. is not bound by a treaty until Congress implements it. (Simplifying, but I think that's the general gist).

Since 2008, a Senate with a large Democratic majority has failed to implement the treaty. Then, Senate with a smaller Democratic majority failed to implement the treaty. A House of Representatives with a Democratic majority has failed to implement the treaty. Then, a House of Representatives with a Republican majority has failed to implement the treaty. In the present House, not a single member has even introduced implementing legislation. 0/435. Take it up with them.

it sounds like to me that they (Congress) never gave explicit authority to the structures which rendered the decision (ICJ).

Still, way too much sympathy for a man who bragged about having virgin blood on his pants. But... with all things, it isn't so much the crime (snuffing out a girl with a large rock after raping her so she can't tell who did it) but rather the offense of having crossed the right thinking people (Texas's execution policies crossing liberal sensibilities).

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The treaty is from 1963, so I'm not sure that's true. The governing case here is Medellin v. Texas from 2008. That case said that the U.S. is not bound by a treaty until Congress implements it. (Simplifying, but I think that's the general gist).

Since 2008, a Senate with a large Democratic majority has failed to implement the treaty. Then, Senate with a smaller Democratic majority failed to implement the treaty. A House of Representatives with a Democratic majority has failed to implement the treaty. Then, a House of Representatives with a Republican majority has failed to implement the treaty. In the present House, not a single member has even introduced implementing legislation. 0/435. Take it up with them.

Thanks. That's nuts though. The 6th Amendment makes it clear that once a treaty is ratified it becomes US law.

But on the list of things I care about this ranks pretty low.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-24-2011oaj.pdf

Pretty amusing opinion. Guess this judge is known for writing like this fairly regularly.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Call me crazy, but instead of coming up with stupid rhymes, do your job and do it professionally. This is ridiculous and makes him look like a child.

If you want to be a cunning linguist, do it on your own time or pick a better profession.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Call me crazy, but instead of coming up with stupid rhymes, do your job and do it professionally. This is ridiculous and makes him look like a child.

IIRC Chief Justice Roberts did a ruling as a hardboiled detective novel.

They get bored.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

IIRC Chief Justice Roberts did a ruling as a hardboiled detective novel.

They get bored.

I'd prefer it if they wrote a professional opinion and had a website, blog, column, or WHATEVER and did their little children's rhymes there. I get bored writing reports to my superiors and peers. I definitely don't resort to Seussian antics.

The job of the appellate courts is to interpret the law and render an opinion clarifying said law. Opinions should be clear, concise, and carefully worded to convey the opinion of the court to make sure there isn't a misinterpretation if the case is cited in another trial.

Oh well. *shrug*

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

IIRC Chief Justice Roberts did a ruling as a hardboiled detective novel.

They get bored.

Yep. it was a denial of cert that he disagreed with.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The job of the appellate courts is to interpret the law and render an opinion clarifying said law.

Yeah, but not every case is groundbreaking. There are a lot of appeals that don't have a chance in hell of winning or even need a clarification of law. And sitting judges generally shouldn't have blogs, websites, or the like.

Meh, I think the world needs more colorful people. There is way too much toeing the PC line in everything. That, or we need to make a department of follies and hire official court jesters.