Post by justme on Aug 5, 2008 21:40:58 GMT -5
Hot off the press.....
MEDELLIN v. TEXAS
Per Curiam
congressional or state legislative action.
It is up to Congress whether to implement obligations
undertaken under a treaty which (like this one) does not
itself have the force and effect of domestic law sufficient to
set aside the judgment or the ensuing sentence, and Congress
has not progressed beyond the bare introduction of a
bill in the four years since the ICJ ruling and the four
months since our ruling in Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. ___
(2008). This inaction is consistent with the President’s
decision in 2005 to withdraw the United States’ accession
to jurisdiction of the ICJ with regard to matters arising
under the Convention.
The beginning premise for any stay, and indeed for the
assumption that Congress or the legislature might seek to
intervene in this suit, must be that petitioner’s confession
was obtained unlawfully. This is highly unlikely as a
matter of domestic or international law. Other arguments
seeking to establish that a violation of the Convention
constitutes grounds for showing the invalidity of the state
court judgment, for instance because counsel was inadequate,
are also insubstantial, for the reasons noted in our
previous opinion. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5).
The Department of Justice of the United States is well
aware of these proceedings and has not chosen to seek our
intervention. Its silence is no surprise: The United States
has not wavered in its position that petitioner was not
prejudiced by his lack of consular access.
The application to recall and stay the mandate and for
stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to
JUSTICE SCALIA, and by him referred to the Court, is
denied. The application for stay of execution of sentence of
death, presented to JUSTICE SCALIA, and by him referred
to the Court, is denied. The petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is denied.
MEDELLIN v. TEXAS
Per Curiam
congressional or state legislative action.
It is up to Congress whether to implement obligations
undertaken under a treaty which (like this one) does not
itself have the force and effect of domestic law sufficient to
set aside the judgment or the ensuing sentence, and Congress
has not progressed beyond the bare introduction of a
bill in the four years since the ICJ ruling and the four
months since our ruling in Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. ___
(2008). This inaction is consistent with the President’s
decision in 2005 to withdraw the United States’ accession
to jurisdiction of the ICJ with regard to matters arising
under the Convention.
The beginning premise for any stay, and indeed for the
assumption that Congress or the legislature might seek to
intervene in this suit, must be that petitioner’s confession
was obtained unlawfully. This is highly unlikely as a
matter of domestic or international law. Other arguments
seeking to establish that a violation of the Convention
constitutes grounds for showing the invalidity of the state
court judgment, for instance because counsel was inadequate,
are also insubstantial, for the reasons noted in our
previous opinion. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5).
The Department of Justice of the United States is well
aware of these proceedings and has not chosen to seek our
intervention. Its silence is no surprise: The United States
has not wavered in its position that petitioner was not
prejudiced by his lack of consular access.
The application to recall and stay the mandate and for
stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to
JUSTICE SCALIA, and by him referred to the Court, is
denied. The application for stay of execution of sentence of
death, presented to JUSTICE SCALIA, and by him referred
to the Court, is denied. The petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is denied.
