Archive for the 'Bush' Category

Father of Murdered Girl: “He shook my hand and lied.”

Following up on the death penalty case in Texas in which President Bush is currently siding with the Mexican government and a Mexican murderer/rapist over American citizens.

From FoxNews.com, Father of Murdered Girl Questions Bush’s Support to Halt Killer’s Execution 

“It is inexplicable that the president of the United States, our former governor, would turn his back on the families and on these victims and side with the world court and the Mexican government,” said Dianne Clements, president of Houston’s Justice for All, a criminal justice reform organization.

Ertman said he feels betrayed by Bush’s decision. Ertman shook Bush’s hand when he was running for president, asking him if he remembered the girls and if he would keep their killers on death row. Bush said he would keep them on death row, Ertman said.

“He shook my hand and lied,” Ertman said.

Message to Mexico: Cram it!

Most disgusting news story of the day, from FoxNews.com:

Death Penalty Case Puts Bush and Texas at Odds Over Mexican’s Fate

WASHINGTON — President Bush, who presided over 152 executions as governor of Texas, wants to halt the state’s execution of a Mexican national for the brutal killing of two teenage girls.

The case of Jose Ernesto Medellin has become a confusing test of presidential power that the U.S. Supreme Court, which hears the case this week, ultimately will sort out.

The president wants to enforce a decision by the International Court of Justice that found the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners violated their rights to legal help as outlined in the 1963 Vienna Convention.

That is the same court Bush has since said he plans to ignore if it makes similar decisions affecting state criminal laws.

Unbelievable. We elect a president who promised to thumb his nose at any international attempts to exercise power over the United States, and this is how he thanks us? Un-freaking-believable.

“The president does not agree with the ICJ’s interpretation of the Vienna Convention,” the administration said in arguments filed with the court. This time, though, the U.S. agreed to abide by the international court’s decision because ignoring it would harm American interests abroad, the government said.

Texas argues that neither the international court nor Bush has any say in Medellin’s case.

Good for them. This is a STATE issue. Contrary to popular belief, we have not completely abandoned the Constitution yet.

Medellin was born in Mexico, but spent much of his childhood in the United States. He was 18 in June 1993, when he and other members of the Black and Whites gang in Houston encountered two teenage girls on a railroad trestle.

The girls were gang-raped and strangled. Their bodies were found four days later.

Honestly, this is the part that really angers me. I don’t care if the criminal is white / black / brown / purple. Any person who does this to women deserves to be drawn and quartered. Bush needs a wake-up slap for being so idiotic and offensive to defend these heinous criminals.

Medellin was arrested a few days later. He was told he had a right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police did not tell him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate.

Medellin gave a written confession. He was convicted of murder in the course of a sexual assault, a capital offense in Texas. A judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.

Medellin did not raise the lack of assistance from Mexican diplomats during his trial or sentencing. When he did claim his rights had been violated, Texas and federal courts turned him down because he had not objected at his trial. Mexico later sued the United States in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, on behalf of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row in the U.S.

If Bush had any balls, he’d communicate this message to the Mexican government and to The Hague: Cram it. We’ll fry whatever rotten, despicable, repulsive criminals we want to - with or without your permission.

The Next Supreme Court Vacancy

From Edward Whelan at the National Review Online,
The Next Supreme Court Vacancy: There’s plenty of room to confirm another strong justice.”

If a Supreme Court vacancy unexpectedly develops this summer, the conventional wisdom is that President Bush will find it extremely difficult or impossible to get a strong proponent of judicial restraint confirmed by the Senate. Now that Senate Democrats are in the majority, the thinking goes, they can easily defeat any judicial conservative, especially if the nominee is replacing one of the five justices who are consistent (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) or frequent (Kennedy) votes for liberal judicial activism. Look, after all, at how they’re now able to block the President’s lower-court nominees whenever they want to.

This conventional wisdom is unsound. Briefly put: Under long-established Senate practice, every Supreme Court nominee is afforded an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. A departure from that practice would threaten to impose severe political costs on Senate Democrats. In a competently run confirmation campaign, a strong proponent of judicial restraint will win majority approval in the Senate, with votes to spare.

Now for the extended version…

I highly recommend reading the entire article if you are at all interested in the future of the Supreme Court. Obviously, this is all hypothetical. There is no guarantee that Bush will get the chance to replace another Supreme Court justice, but it is definitely worth considering now rather than being caught off guard in the future.

I do like Whelan’s logic, overall. Unless the Democrats want to commit political suicide for 2008, they will have to send Bush’s nominee before the entire Senate for an up or down vote.

Ironically, success in filibustering a nominee would probably produce the riskiest situation for Democrats, especially if President Bush steadfastly stood by an appealing nominee. Going into the 2008 election year, Democrats would be foolish to highlight the gulf between the parties, and between their presidential candidates, on the proper role of the Supreme Court.

My only problem with this article is that the author began by assuming the Bush administration would not only run a confirmation campaign competently, but also nominate a strong strict constructionist to begin with — a bit of a stretch after the Harriet Meiers debacle. However, his pessimism (a true sign of a Bush-era conservative) shines through in the end:

To be sure, there will be plenty of timid voices counseling President Bush to go wobbly. A number of Republican senators, for example — including some conservatives — will encourage the hopeless illusion of a consensus pick. Confident that they will win an issueless reelection campaign, they would prefer to avoid the controversy of a contentious confirmation fight, even if that controversy will most likely redound to their benefit. Why, they ask themselves, incur even a small downside risk? Some White House advisers may fear that political capital will be diverted from their own favored priorities, and others may believe that the benchmark of a successful nomination is a quick and quiet confirmation, rather than the appointment of a quality justice.

President Bush’s appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are perhaps his greatest domestic achievements. If another vacancy develops, President Bush can enrich his legacy with another outstanding appointment or jeopardize it by an inferior selection. The choice will be his, and no one should mistakenly believe that the bare Democratic majority in the Senate prevents him from selecting another strong proponent of judicial restraint.

Food for thought, eh?

Check out the article for the rest of Whelan’s extended version.