We're So Fucked
Justices Rule Against Bush on Death Penalty Case - New York Times
Just to be clear: Bush's argument was that the condemned defendants had been unfairly denied their rights.
The Supreme Court came down on the right of Bush.
Categories
Politics0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: We're So Fucked.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.epenthesis.org/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/4787
I remember reading this headline today and thinking, "Well, imagine that! Bush's court thumbed their noses at him."
And then I read the article.
My interpretation of this issue is complicated, but it goes something like this: it's true that President Dubya has expanded executive power for himself during his time as President, which will end in about 10 months (thank god!!). But, this does not mean he wants EVERY President to have expanded power.
Quite the opposite. As far as I can tell, Dubya has sought to limit federal power in favor of state's rights consistently, at least at the Supreme Court level (consider his appointments and his support of Anna Nicole Smith's trial, which was in essence a state's rights issue; Dubya sided with Anna Nicole because her position was the state's rights position).
So why did his administration order Texas to comply with a federal treaty? Because he wanted to force the issue into the Supreme Court where he knew his cronies would slam it down.
Having said all that, I recognize that there is some merit to the court's decision. In other words, I'm not convinced the federal government should be allowed to force states to follow any and all treaties. Why? Because the negotiation process for those treaties is often secretive and non-democratic. The court basically ruled that treaties have to go through the same democratic process that any other law has to go through, and I find that to be a fair point.