Suddenly and without warning, President Bush has
decided to start opposing executions of convicted murderers. Um, dude, the ship has kind of sailed on that whole hope of making the Mexicans like you thing. And it's a little late to try and pretend you understand the meaning of clemency. So what is this really about?
Ted Cruz, the Texas solicitor general, said the administration's position would "allow the president to set aside any state law the president believes is inconvenient to international comity."
Yes, we do so like to ignore inconvenient laws with little to no justification.
The case itself presents interesting but terribly confusing issues of international law and comity, issues SO confusing that I can't even be bothered to try and wrap my head around them all. But, you have fun with that if it's your thing--here's the
Scotuswiki page for the case.
Despite my opposition to the death penalty, I do have a fundamental problem with the notion that if someone is in this country illegally and kills an American citizen and is arrested by US law enforcement, that we have an obligation to give them access to their country's consulate to assist with getting them out of US prosecution. Those who suffered through first year Civil Procedure (yes so I do have occasion to talk about such things with a first year law student now...shut up) will recall the concept of "purposeful availment." Basically, you can't do business in or utilize the laws of a particular state to your benefit and then try to evade personal jurisdiction if you get sued for your activities there. Along those same lines, my gut tells me that if you come into the US and kill some of our folks, it's pretty bogus to try to argue that you should be tried under the laws of your own country, particularly if the laws of your own country are lax and may result in you being out in a few years and able to slip back into the US to kill more of our folks. Maybe that's just me thinking worst case scenario, but that's my initial reaction to this case.
Anyhow, this case should be an interesting one to watch because it is surprising that an administration so opposed to the notion of international law having any power over United States criminal justice would actually take the position that Texas should be forced to abide by the judgment of the International Court of Justice in this case. Something must be afoot for that to be true. I think the quote from the Texas AG above pretty much says it all. And that's scary.