:: welcome to

NINOMANIA

:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::


"Scalialicious!"
-- Eve Tushnet


"Frankfurter was born too soon for the Web, but I'm sure that, had it been possible, there would have been the equivalent of Ninomania for Frankfurter."
-- Mark Tushnet
(I agree, and commented here.)


"The preeminent Scalia blog"
-- Underneath Their Robes


 Subscribe in a reader



Site Feed


Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter



    Bloglinks:

    Above the Law, by David Lat

    Balkinization

    CrimLaw

    Duncan's Con Law Course Blog

    Eve Tushnet

    Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords

    How Appealing

    Hugh Hewitt

    Justice Thomas Appreciation Page

    Legal Theory Blog

    Lex Communis

    Opinio Juris

    Overlawyered.com

    Paper Chase (from JURIST)

    Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.)

    Professor Bainbridge

    Public Discourse

    Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt

    SCOTUS Blog

    Volokh Conspiracy

    WSJ Law Blog





    Other fine sites:

    Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization

    Ave Maria School of Law

    Center for Thomas More Studies

    Family Defense Center

    The Federalist Society

    The Founders' Constitution

    George Mason University School of Law

    Immigration and Refugee Appellate Center

    Judged: Law Firm News & Intelligence

    JURIST

    Law Prose (Bryan Garner)

    Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

    National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA)

    Supreme Court decisions

    The Weekly Standard



    Something I wrote about marriage


    lawyer blogs


    [::..archive..::]
    ::

    :: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 ::
    Medellin: I'm monitoring the execution sitution via Scotublog and Google News. The last-minute argument for delay is non-trivial. As presented by Lyle Denniston:
    “Texas is about to execute Mr. Medellin anyway, taking the decision out of Congress’ hands and placing the United States irrevocably in breach [of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]....

    “[T]he decision to breach the treaty has effectively been made by the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas, who, with the approval of a state trial-court judge, set an execution date at the earliest point allowed under Texas law,” the brief asserted.

    That is not where the question over observing treaty rights should be left, it concluded.

    In the course of the reply brief, Medellin’s attorneys specified that they were asking the Supreme Court to put the execution on hold “for a period of one year to allow Congress an opportunity to enact implementing legislation” to carry out U.S. obligations under the treaty....

    OK, this deserves thought, and I'm glad the Supreme Court did not dismiss it summarily. However, two reservations, and a counter-reservation:

    1. The reference to the Harris County DA and the trial judge is a bit disingenuous. Really, the State of Texas, a sovereign state, is the actor here. This may not be a dispositive fact, but rhetorically smooshing responsibility down to people who can be made to sound like bit players tends to obscure it.

    2. What's magical about "one year"? Congress could have enacted implementing legislation the day it ratified the Convention, or the day after Medellin v. Texas was handed down, or the day before it went into its current recess -- excuse me, "district work period." But, as the Court held, neither the President, nor the ICJ, nor the Court itself can directly create implementing legislation, or order states to comply with the Convention as if such legislation existed. So where, exactly, would the Court get the authority to stay the execution for a year, or for any period of time, for that matter?

    3. If I'm wrong about these points, I'll be very comfortable with being found so by the Court. Mr. Medellin is a very suitable candidate for the death penalty, but at the same time, I'm not so committed to the death penalty per se that I'd be vexed at being contradicted by the Court.

    :: David M. Wagner 9:05 PM [+] ::
    ...

    Site Meter
    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?