Supreme Court Backs States' Rights

The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of states' rights in what should be considered some very good news:

President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.

In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.

Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.

An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court's rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president's declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.

The president may not "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law," Roberts said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

More information -- including some from people who aren't quite so thrilled about the decision -- at Michelle Malkin's website.

Personally, I think this is a great thing.  While it does limit the power of the Presidency a bit, that's not always a bad thing, especially in cases where the President is clearly wrong (like this one).  This ruling essentially means that states still have the primary authority to conduct their own criminal decisions, even when international courts are trying to shoulder their way in.  The three justices who dissented are, of course, activist liberal judges who frequently look to international law rather than our own Constitution.  This is another example of why judicial appointments are so very, very important, and an illustration of one of the best things Bush has done during his time in the White House, even though it bit him this time around.

This all goes back to state rights versus federal rights, and this is just one more thing that should be kept at the state level.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court agreed.

There's my two cents.