Here's Why We Need Conservative Justices On The Court

[SavannahMann]

I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.

You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.

Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?

No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....

....mission accomplished.

You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.

According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?

Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......

This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.

You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.

Wow. Not only are you a nut but your reading comprehension sucks. Let’s look at reply number 7 not 8.

View attachment 218823

I spoke about the United States violating international law and treaties we signed and ratified like the Extradition Treaty with Italy. I never said one word about adapting international law. I said that the Constitution made Treaties the same as Federal Law. I was explaining why one leg of you OP was valid. The contempt that America is viewed by the worlds legal systems. It is not because we fail to adapt their laws. It is because we fail to follow our own laws. If we start to follow our own laws then we can be annoyed that the world legal systems view us with contempt.

You have not made a case for a Conservative Justice yet. All you have done is show how irrational you are. Did you forget your meds again?

My argument is for sovereignty.


You've given up the argument by being unable to answer this question.
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



Not one of you Liberals has been able to defend guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran.

Sadly, I did answer your question. In reply number 35. Sadly, you were too busy to read the lengthy answer. So you continued off topic demanding support for a Conservative Supreme Court Justice so we can stop the Iranian Nuclear Deal. A deal that the IAEA, you know those inspectors who go and check it out, say that the Iranians are in compliance with. So the people who are inspecting the Iranians, a process that could not happen without the deal, say that the Iranians are complying with the deal.

Now, back to the topic at hand. What does the Iranian Nuclear Deal have to do with anything concerning the Supreme Court? Or are you incapable of making any case for why we should have a Conservative Justice?

As or Sovereignty. Pfui. If we agree to an international treaty, and we have signed on to and ratified several, we are bound by honor, and our own constitutional law to obey those treaties. Not just use them as cudgels to justify our insane anger. We have to follow them too. Like the aforementioned Extradition Treaty we have with Italy. For some reason, actual legal issues that have faced the Supreme Court are not interesting to you in your justification for a Conservative Justice. Insane as it seems, you are probably the biggest loser when it comes to the argument. You have convinced me though. I’ve just finished writing to my Senator via a Fax Program to advise both Senators that they must vote against Kavanaugh since apparently the only reason to approve them is Foreign Policy according to a vociferous proponent I’ve spent two days arguing with.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....

....mission accomplished.

You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.

According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?

Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......

This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.

You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.

Wow. Not only are you a nut but your reading comprehension sucks. Let’s look at reply number 7 not 8.

View attachment 218823

I spoke about the United States violating international law and treaties we signed and ratified like the Extradition Treaty with Italy. I never said one word about adapting international law. I said that the Constitution made Treaties the same as Federal Law. I was explaining why one leg of you OP was valid. The contempt that America is viewed by the worlds legal systems. It is not because we fail to adapt their laws. It is because we fail to follow our own laws. If we start to follow our own laws then we can be annoyed that the world legal systems view us with contempt.

You have not made a case for a Conservative Justice yet. All you have done is show how irrational you are. Did you forget your meds again?

My argument is for sovereignty.


You've given up the argument by being unable to answer this question.
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



Not one of you Liberals has been able to defend guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran.

Sadly, I did answer your question. In reply number 35. Sadly, you were too busy to read the lengthy answer. So you continued off topic demanding support for a Conservative Supreme Court Justice so we can stop the Iranian Nuclear Deal. A deal that the IAEA, you know those inspectors who go and check it out, say that the Iranians are in compliance with. So the people who are inspecting the Iranians, a process that could not happen without the deal, say that the Iranians are complying with the deal.

Now, back to the topic at hand. What does the Iranian Nuclear Deal have to do with anything concerning the Supreme Court? Or are you incapable of making any case for why we should have a Conservative Justice?

As or Sovereignty. Pfui. If we agree to an international treaty, and we have signed on to and ratified several, we are bound by honor, and our own constitutional law to obey those treaties. Not just use them as cudgels to justify our insane anger. We have to follow them too. Like the aforementioned Extradition Treaty we have with Italy. For some reason, actual legal issues that have faced the Supreme Court are not interesting to you in your justification for a Conservative Justice. Insane as it seems, you are probably the biggest loser when it comes to the argument. You have convinced me though. I’ve just finished writing to my Senator via a Fax Program to advise both Senators that they must vote against Kavanaugh since apparently the only reason to approve them is Foreign Policy according to a vociferous proponent I’ve spent two days arguing with.

Actually, no.....you didn't answer the question.

You pretended that war was the only option....false, as headlines prove re: sanctions.

But you did prove to be a dunce, posting as though Iran is in the same league with the United States, militarily.


BTW....
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[SavannahMann]

You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.

According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?

Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......

This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.

You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.

Wow. Not only are you a nut but your reading comprehension sucks. Let’s look at reply number 7 not 8.

View attachment 218823

I spoke about the United States violating international law and treaties we signed and ratified like the Extradition Treaty with Italy. I never said one word about adapting international law. I said that the Constitution made Treaties the same as Federal Law. I was explaining why one leg of you OP was valid. The contempt that America is viewed by the worlds legal systems. It is not because we fail to adapt their laws. It is because we fail to follow our own laws. If we start to follow our own laws then we can be annoyed that the world legal systems view us with contempt.

You have not made a case for a Conservative Justice yet. All you have done is show how irrational you are. Did you forget your meds again?

My argument is for sovereignty.


You've given up the argument by being unable to answer this question.
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



Not one of you Liberals has been able to defend guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran.

Sadly, I did answer your question. In reply number 35. Sadly, you were too busy to read the lengthy answer. So you continued off topic demanding support for a Conservative Supreme Court Justice so we can stop the Iranian Nuclear Deal. A deal that the IAEA, you know those inspectors who go and check it out, say that the Iranians are in compliance with. So the people who are inspecting the Iranians, a process that could not happen without the deal, say that the Iranians are complying with the deal.

Now, back to the topic at hand. What does the Iranian Nuclear Deal have to do with anything concerning the Supreme Court? Or are you incapable of making any case for why we should have a Conservative Justice?

As or Sovereignty. Pfui. If we agree to an international treaty, and we have signed on to and ratified several, we are bound by honor, and our own constitutional law to obey those treaties. Not just use them as cudgels to justify our insane anger. We have to follow them too. Like the aforementioned Extradition Treaty we have with Italy. For some reason, actual legal issues that have faced the Supreme Court are not interesting to you in your justification for a Conservative Justice. Insane as it seems, you are probably the biggest loser when it comes to the argument. You have convinced me though. I’ve just finished writing to my Senator via a Fax Program to advise both Senators that they must vote against Kavanaugh since apparently the only reason to approve them is Foreign Policy according to a vociferous proponent I’ve spent two days arguing with.

Actually, no.....you didn't answer the question.

You pretended that war was the only option....false, as headlines prove re: sanctions.

But you did prove to be a dunce, posting as though Iran is in the same league with the United States, militarily.


BTW....
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Yeah. I see you still haven’t read the reply number 35. Fine. I’ll come down to your level.

If we pick a Conservative Justice a giant Goat will eat the sun and we will all die.

If we pick a Conservative Justice the Cost of. Wedding in Middle Earth will double.

If you don’t pick a Liberal Justice the sun will be eaten by a giant Goat so that proves my point.

 

[Lastman]

This query is momentous:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

nothing was ever guaranteed to anyone. Ah. Damn it feels good to say it.

Stop lying.

Of course it was guaranteed.


....contrary to all of his promises not to do so, and in contravention of the non-proliferation agreement that is our policy, Hussein Obama guaranteed nuclear weapons to Iran....and you can't see a problem with that.


Gads, you're an imbecile




1. NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


2. There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

Guaranteeing is a delusion.

 

[JoeB131]

What a fucking retard , that's how you spin it?

Um, yeah, that's how I spin it. We signed a treaty that entitles foreign nationals to consult with their embassies when they are arrested for a crime. Texas ignored that law and put a man to death.

So what leg do we have to stand on if Iran does the same thing to one of our citizens?

Now put down the bottle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This query is momentous:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

nothing was ever guaranteed to anyone. Ah. Damn it feels good to say it.

Stop lying.

Of course it was guaranteed.


....contrary to all of his promises not to do so, and in contravention of the non-proliferation agreement that is our policy, Hussein Obama guaranteed nuclear weapons to Iran....and you can't see a problem with that.


Gads, you're an imbecile




1. NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


2. There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

Guaranteeing is a delusion.

A fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......

This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.

You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.

Wow. Not only are you a nut but your reading comprehension sucks. Let’s look at reply number 7 not 8.

View attachment 218823

I spoke about the United States violating international law and treaties we signed and ratified like the Extradition Treaty with Italy. I never said one word about adapting international law. I said that the Constitution made Treaties the same as Federal Law. I was explaining why one leg of you OP was valid. The contempt that America is viewed by the worlds legal systems. It is not because we fail to adapt their laws. It is because we fail to follow our own laws. If we start to follow our own laws then we can be annoyed that the world legal systems view us with contempt.

You have not made a case for a Conservative Justice yet. All you have done is show how irrational you are. Did you forget your meds again?

My argument is for sovereignty.


You've given up the argument by being unable to answer this question.
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



Not one of you Liberals has been able to defend guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran.

Sadly, I did answer your question. In reply number 35. Sadly, you were too busy to read the lengthy answer. So you continued off topic demanding support for a Conservative Supreme Court Justice so we can stop the Iranian Nuclear Deal. A deal that the IAEA, you know those inspectors who go and check it out, say that the Iranians are in compliance with. So the people who are inspecting the Iranians, a process that could not happen without the deal, say that the Iranians are complying with the deal.

Now, back to the topic at hand. What does the Iranian Nuclear Deal have to do with anything concerning the Supreme Court? Or are you incapable of making any case for why we should have a Conservative Justice?

As or Sovereignty. Pfui. If we agree to an international treaty, and we have signed on to and ratified several, we are bound by honor, and our own constitutional law to obey those treaties. Not just use them as cudgels to justify our insane anger. We have to follow them too. Like the aforementioned Extradition Treaty we have with Italy. For some reason, actual legal issues that have faced the Supreme Court are not interesting to you in your justification for a Conservative Justice. Insane as it seems, you are probably the biggest loser when it comes to the argument. You have convinced me though. I’ve just finished writing to my Senator via a Fax Program to advise both Senators that they must vote against Kavanaugh since apparently the only reason to approve them is Foreign Policy according to a vociferous proponent I’ve spent two days arguing with.

Actually, no.....you didn't answer the question.

You pretended that war was the only option....false, as headlines prove re: sanctions.

But you did prove to be a dunce, posting as though Iran is in the same league with the United States, militarily.


BTW....
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Yeah. I see you still haven’t read the reply number 35. Fine. I’ll come down to your level.

If we pick a Conservative Justice a giant Goat will eat the sun and we will all die.

If we pick a Conservative Justice the Cost of. Wedding in Middle Earth will double.

If you don’t pick a Liberal Justice the sun will be eaten by a giant Goat so that proves my point.

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[JoeB131]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

We didn't.

Hey, you know, the Zionists have been screaming at the top of their lungs that the Iranians are going to get nukes any minute now since the 1990's.

And here we are in 2018... Iran still doesn't have a bomb.

One more time, besides the Zionists and Oil companies, why is any of this our business?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This query is momentous:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

nothing was ever guaranteed to anyone. Ah. Damn it feels good to say it.

Stop lying.

Of course it was guaranteed.


....contrary to all of his promises not to do so, and in contravention of the non-proliferation agreement that is our policy, Hussein Obama guaranteed nuclear weapons to Iran....and you can't see a problem with that.


Gads, you're an imbecile




1. NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


2. There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

Guaranteeing is a delusion.

A fact.

I provided this, from the Liberal NPR...

1. NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.




And you responded with the usual government school 'is not, isssssssss nnnnooootttttttttt!!!!.'


Did you get a gold star?

 

[Flash]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

You idiot.

We get to set our own laws. That is called sovereignty you moron. If somebody commits a capital crime in this country then they need to be held accountable according to our laws regardless of where they are from.

 

[JoeB131]

You idiot.

We get to set our own laws. That is called sovereignty you moron. If somebody commits a capital crime in this country then they need to be held accountable according to our laws regardless of where they are from.

Again, we also signed treaties.

One of the treaties we signed allows foreign nationals to consult with their embassies when accused of a crime. This protects our citizens around the world as much as it protects foreign nationals.

When you can't hold up to your agreements, don't expect anyone else to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

You idiot.

We get to set our own laws. That is called sovereignty you moron. If somebody commits a capital crime in this country then they need to be held accountable according to our laws regardless of where they are from.

Exactly why we need conservative, i.e., American judges on the Court.


Liberals will leave it up to the globalists communists.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly why we need conservative, i.e., American judges on the Court.


Liberals will leave it up to the globalists communists.

so murdering someone without due process of law is a 'conservative' value, now?

Or is it just, 'Let's kill the darkie!"

 

[SavannahMann]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

You idiot.

We get to set our own laws. That is called sovereignty you moron. If somebody commits a capital crime in this country then they need to be held accountable according to our laws regardless of where they are from.

Absolutely. But we have a Treaty that says we must notify the Embassy of their nation of Citizenship that we have a citizen in custody and allow access to their citizen.

It doesn’t mean we can’t prosecute. It does mean a Representative of their nation’s government has a right to meet with them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly why we need conservative, i.e., American judges on the Court.


Liberals will leave it up to the globalists communists.

so murdering someone without due process of law is a 'conservative' value, now?

Or is it just, 'Let's kill the darkie!"

Or is it just, 'Let's kill the darkie!"

Now....why would you quote that Democrat mantra??????


Oh....right....'cause you can't help being a fool

 

[Flash]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

You idiot.

We get to set our own laws. That is called sovereignty you moron. If somebody commits a capital crime in this country then they need to be held accountable according to our laws regardless of where they are from.

Absolutely. But we have a Treaty that says we must notify the Embassy of their nation of Citizenship that we have a citizen in custody and allow access to their citizen.

It doesn’t mean we can’t prosecute. It does mean a Representative of their nation’s government has a right to meet with them.

Absolutely! It is proper to have embassy notification. However, we can't have foreign nations undermining our sovereignty. These dumbass Liberal "citizens of the world" Moon Bats don't understand the meaning of the word sovereignty.

 

[SavannahMann]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

You idiot.

We get to set our own laws. That is called sovereignty you moron. If somebody commits a capital crime in this country then they need to be held accountable according to our laws regardless of where they are from.

Absolutely. But we have a Treaty that says we must notify the Embassy of their nation of Citizenship that we have a citizen in custody and allow access to their citizen.

It doesn’t mean we can’t prosecute. It does mean a Representative of their nation’s government has a right to meet with them.

Absolutely! It is proper to have embassy notification. However, we can't have foreign nations undermining our sovereignty. These dumbass Liberal "citizens of the world" Moon Bats don't understand the meaning of the word sovereignty.

But Texas arrested a Mexican national, and questioned him before notifying the Mexican Consulate, and got a confession before the suspect was afforded those rights. It would be as if you were dragged in and put in an interview room and told you had to confess before you went home, and after confessing you were then told your rights under Miranda.

Texas caused a rather severe international kerflufle from this. The Federal courts should have ruled these confessions inadmissible. There have been more than one instance of it. The reason? The Vienna Consular Convention of 1963 which we signed and ratified. The highest law in the land, the Constitution, says that Treaties have the force and power of Federal Law. They are equal to Federal Law. So Texas broke Federal Law in not advising the suspects that they had the right to Consular Representation. This is a matter of sovereignty, and of the law. Our Constitution says that Treaties are in force when they are ratified. This one has been ratified longer than I’ve been alive.

So is it just a matter of Soverenty? No. It is a matter of both International Law, and Constitutional Law. When we ignore one, we are automatically according to our own Constitution, ignoring another.

Now, remember the case of Amanda Knox. I don’t know if she killed anyone or not. Italian Justice is usually an iffy thing. But she told them who she was, and provided her passport. Then she was put in touch with a Consular Official who told her of her rights under Italian Law and helped her find a lawyer. He advised the State Department, who told her family what was going on, and what the Italian law said.

We all know she was tried, and convicted, and on appeal the conviction was overturned. But imagine if she had not been allowed to see an American Government official. Imagine what we would have done. We would have screamed bloody murder and demanded the return of our citizen. Would we be right in doing so? I think so. Just as Mexico was right to object to the denial of the rights of their citizens. Just as our Courts should enforce that Treaty because it is the same as Federal Law by the Constitution.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia

So when we blow off that Treaty, we are not only blowing off international law, but ignoring our own Constitutional Law. How can we justify that if we claim to be a nation of laws? What force does our Ambassador have behind his words when he objects to an American being denied access to Embassy personnel? We’re left with the weakest of all justifications. Might makes right. We have to follow the law, before we can object to others breaking the law. We have to be following the rules before we can object to those who are breaking them. I mean, you can’t very well complain that the batter has a cork in his bat if you have sand paper in your glove on the pitchers mound and Vaseline in your hair.

 

[Flash]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

You idiot.

We get to set our own laws. That is called sovereignty you moron. If somebody commits a capital crime in this country then they need to be held accountable according to our laws regardless of where they are from.

Absolutely. But we have a Treaty that says we must notify the Embassy of their nation of Citizenship that we have a citizen in custody and allow access to their citizen.

It doesn’t mean we can’t prosecute. It does mean a Representative of their nation’s government has a right to meet with them.

Absolutely! It is proper to have embassy notification. However, we can't have foreign nations undermining our sovereignty. These dumbass Liberal "citizens of the world" Moon Bats don't understand the meaning of the word sovereignty.

But Texas arrested a Mexican national, and questioned him before notifying the Mexican Consulate, and got a confession before the suspect was afforded those rights. It would be as if you were dragged in and put in an interview room and told you had to confess before you went home, and after confessing you were then told your rights under Miranda.

Texas caused a rather severe international kerflufle from this. The Federal courts should have ruled these confessions inadmissible. There have been more than one instance of it. The reason? The Vienna Consular Convention of 1963 which we signed and ratified. The highest law in the land, the Constitution, says that Treaties have the force and power of Federal Law. They are equal to Federal Law. So Texas broke Federal Law in not advising the suspects that they had the right to Consular Representation. This is a matter of sovereignty, and of the law. Our Constitution says that Treaties are in force when they are ratified. This one has been ratified longer than I’ve been alive.

So is it just a matter of Soverenty? No. It is a matter of both International Law, and Constitutional Law. When we ignore one, we are automatically according to our own Constitution, ignoring another.

Now, remember the case of Amanda Knox. I don’t know if she killed anyone or not. Italian Justice is usually an iffy thing. But she told them who she was, and provided her passport. Then she was put in touch with a Consular Official who told her of her rights under Italian Law and helped her find a lawyer. He advised the State Department, who told her family what was going on, and what the Italian law said.

We all know she was tried, and convicted, and on appeal the conviction was overturned. But imagine if she had not been allowed to see an American Government official. Imagine what we would have done. We would have screamed bloody murder and demanded the return of our citizen. Would we be right in doing so? I think so. Just as Mexico was right to object to the denial of the rights of their citizens. Just as our Courts should enforce that Treaty because it is the same as Federal Law by the Constitution.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia

So when we blow off that Treaty, we are not only blowing off international law, but ignoring our own Constitutional Law. How can we justify that if we claim to be a nation of laws? What force does our Ambassador have behind his words when he objects to an American being denied access to Embassy personnel? We’re left with the weakest of all justifications. Might makes right. We have to follow the law, before we can object to others breaking the law. We have to be following the rules before we can object to those who are breaking them. I mean, you can’t very well complain that the batter has a cork in his bat if you have sand paper in your glove on the pitchers mound and Vaseline in your hair.

There is nothing wrong with having a procedure for dealing with foreign nationals that commit crimes. Notification to the embassy and things like that are proper things to have a civilized procedure on in the international community

What is not proper is the US giving up its ability to punish criminals in accordance with its laws to some international body.

 

[JoeB131]

Now....why would you quote that Democrat mantra??????


Oh....right....'cause you can't help being a fool

Your Governor was the one who executed this man without giving him access to his country's embassy in violation of international treaty.

In fact, your party is the one that insists on still executing poor people, mostly those of color, when the rest of the civilized world has decided that capital punishment is barbaric.

Now, when we start executing rich white people for crimes, then we can talk.

 

[JoeB131]

Absolutely! It is proper to have embassy notification. However, we can't have foreign nations undermining our sovereignty. These dumbass Liberal "citizens of the world" Moon Bats don't understand the meaning of the word sovereignty.

Except in this case, the person wasn't allowed to talk to his embassy. That was the problem.