And the president can't make you obey it.

In a stunning victory for Sanity and US sovereignty the US Supreme Court [handed down decisions in two cases Tuesday, including Medellin v. Texas (Duke Law School report here: tinyurl.com/27pbxz ); (Briefs here: tinyurl.com/29n5ae ).

The Court ruled that the President of the USA does not have the authority to order the state court to comply with a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (their farce of a website us here: tinyurl.com/22mtog ). The ICJ is an anti-national effort to collaterally attack the sovereignty of the US and other nations by pretending to some imaginary authority which has never existed.

The background:
Jose Ernesto Medellin (a sub human fucking rapist and murderer & illegal alien) (Info here: tinyurl.com/2aaq3c ) is a Mexican national who while an illegal alien in the US committed the rape and murder of two girls – for which he was tried convicted and sentenced to death in Texas.

Medellin appealed, In 2006 a TX Appellate Court held that the President "exceeded his constitutional authority" by ordering state court re-hearings (here: V) for 51 Mexican nationals convicted in US courts. The president's February 2005 memorandum (Here: tinyurl.com/ymxt5f ) instructed the Texas courts to follow a March 2004 ICJ decision (here: tinyurl.com/2u5n7s ) that held that Medellin and the other Mexican nationals tried in US courts had been denied their Vienna Convention on Consular Relations rights (here: tinyurl.com/2nnq7e). The make believe right in question is the right to contact the Mexican consulate for legal assistance and that the US was obligated to grant review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences. This is typical of the ICJ which has no respect of the sovereignty or law of any nation.

It is a mystery why the Bush administration is so eager to comply with the ICJ.

The SCOTUS upheld the TX court, holding that "neither [the ICJ decision] nor the President's Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions." ( Read the Court's opinion: tinyurl.com/3xoarv ) written by Chief Justice Roberts: with concurrance (here: tinyurl.com/35uop8 ). Breyer dissented (here: tinyurl.com/259555 ) ( more here: tinyurl.com/27umq8 ).