Justices Back Texas In Dispute With Bush

[kc5nyo]

President overstepped authority in case of Mexican national, court says.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23793413/

[K9STH]

I agree with the courts on this. However, Bush was trying to follow the provisions of an agreement that John F. Kennedy made in 1963. However, there was never any laws passed by Congress which made any part of the Vienna Convention applicable to the United States.

See the following article in the Dallas Morning News for more details

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/032608dnnatdeathrow.2509989f.html

Glen, K9STH

[kc5nyo]

Glen, I agree with the courts also. Any victory for state's rights is a good decision indeed.

What I found scary was the administration's statement:

"The administration argued that the president's declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing."

The president's declaration is enough? Wow!

[K9STH]

I believe that a Presidential REQUEST (not a DEMAND) to consider a new trial might be appropriate. But, there is nothing in the law that requires a new trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals could have "looked at" the situation (and may indeed have looked at it) and decided whether or not to have a new trial. However, just because any President wants a new trial has no bearing in whether or not a new trial is held.

If Bush were still governor of Texas then he would be in a more likely position to have a new trial granted. But, in the State of Texas the governor can only recommend such. Even when granting pardons the Governor of Texas has to get the approval of the Pardons' Board. Now the Governor can issue a single "stay of execution" for a length of time not to exceed a specific time frame. After that it up to the board.

Glen, K9STH