Antonin “We don’t need no stinkeen badges” Scalia and his half-wit side kick, Clarence “Mumbles “ Thomas were once again instrumental in deciding a repulsive and poorly reasoned Supreme Court case yesterday, one that, aside from its effect on the individual involved, undermines US foreign policy and endangers Americans traveling abroad. Erstwhile presidential candidate-in-waiting, Texas governor Rick Perry – well know hard ass and committed christian – in a bald-faced effort to win conservative, Tea-party, racist, anti-immigrant votes and also show the country how big his dick is, refused to consider the consequences of the execution of Mexican national, Humberto Leal, despite requests by President Obama – yeah Rick; he really IS your president too – and the Mexican government. He felt he simply had to inject this pathetic bastard right now, to get justice for the killing of a 16 year old girl 17 years ago.
Leal’s attorney – not an entirely unbiased observer – noted the overarching nature of the decision to go ahead with the killing, saying, “The execution of Mr. Leal violates the United States' treaty commitments, threatens the nation's foreign policy interests, and undermines the safety of all Americans abroad." However in its 5/4 decision the conservative wing of the court blithely said that it “doubted that the execution would cause grave international consequences”. Well, fellas, you better damn sure hope so. Scalia is known to be contemptuous of idea that the US is bound by international law or courts so his position was no great surprise. And Thomas mostly just wants to sit in his lap, so that was no surprise either. But these other guys should have some understanding of and sensitivity to this basic fact; if we continue to give the finger to any international body with which we disagree, particularly as it pertains to a judgment against us or our interests, how can we expect there to be any rational, cohesive protocols about anything? Isn’t it obvious that works against our long term interests and the goals of our foreign policy?
Tough guy Rick Perry wouldn’t even take a phone call from the Mexican ambassador, with his office saying, in effect, “Mess with the bull, you get the horns”. The thing is, it wasn’t even necessarily about this one forlorn guy. There was evidence in dispute and supporters say that he was wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence because she was white and he was Mexican. Given the number of death row inmates that have been exonerated in the last few years it doesn’t seem to me too much to ask under the circumstances – and given that the case had repercussions far afield from Texas – to delay the execution 6 months, if for no other reason than to show the Mexican government good faith and due diligence. But no – Perry, who recently scheduled an all day pray-in, “for the good of this great nation”, instead betrays the very nation he clearly has designs on leading by his obstinate hewing to the law of the west mentality and his apparent ignorance of international law and what it means to sign a treaty.
A statement from a group of 5 former diplomats, including Thomas Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under George Bush, nicely summed up the jeopardy to US citizens and interests as a result of this decision: ““The ability of the United States to secure future international agreements vital to the protection of our citizens, our national security, and our commercial interests depends largely on whether this nation is perceived as honoring its international commitments.” But Sheriff Perry trumped all that to satiate the blood lust of the people of Texas and to further his political ambitions and that begs the question; what was really more important to US interests – more of value to this “great nation”? The immediate execution of one sad-sack, uneducated Mexican national or wide ranging treaty commitments meant to protect Americans traveling abroad and demonstrate our willingness to live up to our obligations? Seems pretty obvious to me…
Finally it must be noted that there is a whiff of arrogance in Scalia’s brief regarding the decision. He summarily dismisses any possibility that a legislative outcome would prevail in favor of simply granting a hearing in these cases to make sure defendants were given adequate counsel as to be able to defend themselves. In other words, Scalia’s assessment as to whether or not a law is likely to be passed at some point was a key component of the decision not to issue a brief stay of execution. So not only is Antonin just a crabby-ass activist conservative justice who apparently wasn’t breast fed, he also is something of an oracle in his ability to foresee the intent and activities of a congress for which he has demonstrated little regard. It will be a good day when his scowling countenance no longer appears on the federal bench…
No comments:
Post a Comment