Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Support for gun laws dropping | Main | Supreme Court argument thru history »

Transcript Supreme Court argument

Posted by David Hardy · 11 October 2007 12:23 PM

It's here, in pdf. Argument centers around a treaty requirement that consulates be notified if their nationals are arrested, an important consideration being the power of the International Court of Justice to make a ruling, and how much that ruling obliges US courts to follow it in these circumstances (which I don't understand, but apparently the president did something to make it arguably binding).

As usual, it was less an argument than a grilling. Counsel for the petitioner seems rather underprepared. Watch the dynamics. CJ Roberts pins him on a hypothetical (if the ICJ not only made a finding, but ordered the violators imprisoned, would that also bind US courts?). The hypothetical interests Kennedy, whom Roberts is likely courting as a swing vote. The attorney can't come up with an answer, but Ginsburg tries a "save" by suggesting one. Again he gets stuck, and Breyer tries for a save. Alito comes in, and Kennedy and Roberts go back to tag-teaming him.

· General con law

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Gildas | October 11, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply

Mexico sued the US in the ICJ over 51 Mexican murderers on Death Row who did not get consular assistance. The US foolishly agreed to the case taking place, which resulted in a group of European jurists, shockingly, ruling against the US and ordering that these 51 should have their cases 'reconsidered'. The US promptly withdrew from that aspect of the treaty, so these circumstances only (and even this is dubious since they weren't actually parties to the lawsuit) apply to these 51.

However in the interests of diplomatic relations Bush ordered that the states comply with the ruling. Texas (with 28 other states) asserts that the President does not have the power to just order the state courts to ignore their internal procedural rules, and indeed the federal procedural rules, and hold a new hearing - in this case because Medellin did not object to the lack of consular access until after he was sentenced. [Indeed since he had been in the US most of his sorry excuse for a life its not clear what benefit the Mexican lawyers would have yielded over what anyone knows from watching Law and Order!]

The ruling is going to go all over the place I suspect, with partial concurrences and dissents and probably a plurality decision.

The terrifying thing about the transcript is the way Breyer is so earnestly admiringly excited by all this international law (see his questions about the 'Brussels Court / EU Court'*) without for one second appearing to question whether such notions are compatible with the US Constitution. He sees them as the future and that is all that matters. See his dissent in Printz for something similarly awful.

*As it happens its not called by either name and its not in Brussels, but who cares about specifics when its the wave of the future!

MichigammeDave | October 13, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply

I can't help but wonder, in this regard, what will happen down the road. If law enforcement are not allowed to ask about immigration status or citizenship, how are they to know whether to offer consular access? Will it be considered a violation of political correctness to offer consular access to a dark-skinned individual who speaks Spanish?
Just wondering.

Jim | October 13, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply

"Will it be considered a violation of political correctness to offer consular access to a dark-skinned individual who speaks Spanish?"

That would be racial profiling...

Leave a comment