Bush Co. Argues that Int'l Law Trumps US, SCOTUS says "NO"

One of the more bizarre arguments to come out of the supposedly conservative, supposedly Republican Bush administration was the line that and international court had the power to, through BushCo, command a US state court to reopen a death penalty case.

SCOTUS begs to differ.

More below the fold . . .

Now, this is an interesting case to me, because I personally believe that the plaintiff in the case, a Mexican national, should have won this one.

Here's what happened:

Medellin, 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.

Medellin 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. Medellin did not raise that right during his trial but did in one of his death penalty appeals.

BushCo essentially told Texas to re-open the case due to the Vienna conventions, and Texas said no. The case went to the SCOTUS, who agreed with Texas.

Of course, this flies in the face of international law, as well as common human decency, and so in this case BushCo seemed to be in the right. Sort of. It's one of those very tricky decisions, where the Justices were arguing that Bush cannot command the state courts to do something. Separation of powers, I'm assuming. Still, it seems that on the larger merits, the case shoudl be reopened, but not cause Bush says so. And the Justices could certainly have opined that way.

But the conservative SCOTUS, which Bush so loudly trumpets to his 29%, voted the way conservatives do.

Justices voting to say "fuck you" to international law? The usual suspects:

[Chief Justice Roberts], Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with the outcome, but for different reasons than Roberts gave.

So, there you have it. Another SCOTUS decision against BushCo. Wrong reasons, this time.