The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Hey, World Court: Bug Off!
International meddlers order American states to halt death penalty executions.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

They just won’t stop meddling with our sovereignty. The weenies on the World Court are leaning on their friend President Bush to stop the execution of five illegal alien Death Row inmates. You’ll recall that in March, our Supreme Court sided with the state of Texas in upholding US sovereignty and rejecting the World Court/Bush view that individual US states should submit to international law and overturn the will of the people on the death penalty.

What part of “No” don’t they understand?

The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to do all it could to halt the imminent executions of five Mexicans until the court makes a final judgment in a dispute over suspects’ rights.

The row, which has strained relations between the neighbors, centers on the fact that the United States failed to inform 51 of its citizens sentenced to die in U.S. jails of their right to consular assistance.

One of the five Mexicans on death row, Jose Medellin, is due to die on August 5 in Texas.

In 2004, the World Court ruled in favor of Mexico, finding the United States had violated international law, and ordered it to review the 51 cases to see whether the lack of consular assistance had prejudiced the outcome of their trials.

A year later, U.S. President George W. Bush ordered Texas to review Medellin’s case but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March that Bush had no authority to do so, leading Texas to schedule Medellin’s execution for August.

“The court indicates that the United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that five Mexican nationals are not executed pending its final judgment,” Judge Rosalyn Higgins said.

Mexico has asked the World Court or International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an interpretation of its 2004 ruling, given U.S. assertions that its federal states have a large degree of legal autonomy and it cannot compel them to review the cases.

What will the White House do? Remember, President Bush stood with the World Court against America.

And where would our two presidential candidates stand on this case?

Not hard to guess.


Former Texas solicitor general Ted Cruz, who successfully argued the case, provided good background on the fight here:

In Medellín v. Texas, the issue was not simply whether U.S. judges should consult foreign law to guide their decision-making; instead, the central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the United Nations’ World Court has the legal authority to bind the courts of the United States. In other words, the issue was whether decisions of the World Court are superior to those of the Supreme Court, and whether Americans will be governed by the decisions of foreign judges in The Hague.

Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right.

The case began fifteen years ago, when two teenage girls were brutally gang-raped and murdered in northwest Houston, just a few blocks from where I attended church as a child. All six gang members were caught, convicted, and unanimously sentenced to death (except for one who was too young to be eligible for capital punishment). Now approaching two decades after this horrific crime, only one gang member has so far had his sentence carried out.

Another of the gang members, Jose Ernesto Medellín, has seen his case become an international cause célèbre, making it all the way to the World Court and twice to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last week, in a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected all of Medellín’s claims and paved the way for the victims’ grieving families to finally see justice. But the issues in Medellín v. Texas extend well beyond this one confessed murderer.

Medellin argued that the U.S. Supreme Court was bound by the World Court, and that the World Court had already decided he deserved a new trial. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically concluded that the World Court has no such authority. That decision was correct because the Constitution doesn’t grant foreign courts any authority over U.S. courts, and it was critical to preserving our Nation’s fundamental sovereignty.

How on earth did this Texas murder case get to the World Court? Well, in 2003, the nation of Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (the formal name of the World Court), which is the judicial arm of the United Nations. And, in 2004, the World Court ruled for Mexico.

Mexico’s suit was filed on behalf of 51 Mexican nationals, including Medellín, all of whom were convicted murderers on death row throughout the United States. Our southern neighbor argued, correctly, that these Mexican nationals had a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs (a treaty ratified by the United States in 1969) to contact their local Mexican consulates for assistance. As a result — even though the suit raised no questions concerning the proven guilt of these 51 murderers — Mexico sought to have all of their convictions annulled.

The problem was that most of the 51, including Medellín, had failed to raise any Vienna Convention claims at trial, and the usual rule in American criminal law is that if you fail to raise a claim at trial, that claim is forfeited.

Not overly concerned with the usual rules of criminal law in the United States, the World Court agreed with Mexico across the board and issued a remarkable ruling: it “ordered” the United States to reconsider the convictions and death sentences of all 51 convicted murderers.

The World Court ruling was unprecedented. In over 200 years of our Nation’s history, no foreign tribunal has ever before asserted the authority to bind U.S. courts, much less to reopen final criminal convictions. And, armed with the decision of the World Court, Medellín argued that American courts had no option but to obey.

Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the World Court decision cannot be enforced in U.S. courts.


The Supreme Court’s decision was a victory for the State of Texas, but, even more importantly, it was a victory for the American people. Medellín’s argument — which three Justices on the Court would have largely adopted — would fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of our Nation.

The United States Constitution vests sovereignty in the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the President, the fifty States, and ultimately, in We the People. Had Medellín prevailed, American sovereignty and independence would have been gravely undermined.

If Medellín had prevailed, it would have elevated the World Court above the Supreme Court of the United States, given that foreign court binding authority, and made its far-away judges the final arbiters of the law that governs American citizens.

Nobody disputes that the United States should comply with treaty obligations, and both the federal and state governments have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure foreign nationals are notified of their rights under the Vienna Convention. But that is not a reason to disturb the convictions of unquestionably guilty murderers.

Jose Ernesto Medellín voluntarily confessed, in writing, and bragged about raping and killing these young girls as they pleaded for their lives. A jury of his peers unanimously sentenced him to death, and the families of the girls he murdered have waited far too long to see that sentence carried out.

How much longer will they have to wait?

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)