Posted on 04/07/2016 12:58:32 PM PDT by VRWCmember
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz often tells supporters about his Supreme Court win against the federal government in 2008, defending Texas' right to execute a Mexican man for murder, as evidence of his conservative and anti-establishment credentials.
But there is one part of the story that goes untold. The Medellin v. Texas case, decided when Cruz was the state's solicitor general, set the stage for years of diplomatic tension between the United States and its southern neighbor.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefiscaltimes.com ...
I guess it depends on how you feel about the state of Texas standing up to Mexico and the Hague international kangaroo court regarding the execution of a brutal and predatory gang member who took part in the abduction, gang rape, and murder of two teenage girls. Mexico whined that Texas failed to notify this criminal gang member, who was a long-term non-citizen resident in Texas that he had a right to contact the Mexican consulate about his arrest, and by that failure had violated his right to a fair trial. Texas reviewed and rejected that argument but Mexico and a bunch of signatories to the kangaroo court argued that Texas should have reviewed/considered the argument harder. The rapist/murderer was executed for his crimes, and Mexico has been whining about it in every cross-border conversation since.
Obviously, you and this fella who wrote that article think a partial win is a TOTAL loss - I don’t...to each his own.
I am afraid that Cruz will do what so many Republican politicians do - succumb to the GOPe, and then accomplish NOTHING!
THAT is the main reason I like Trump. I also like the whole flip-the government upside down aspect.
I’m just not sure that the media is going to allow Trump the opportunity, because let’s face it - most voters are looking for 5-second soundbites upon which to base their opinions. Look at the ILLEGAL ALIEN discussion which was turned into “Trump hates all Mexicans”. That level of bias is going to be very difficult to beat, even with many Democrats hating Clinton. But, I’m hopeful!
I am afraid that Cruz will do what so many Republican politicians do - succumb to the GOPe, and then accomplish NOTHING!
THAT is the main reason I like Trump. I also like the whole flip-the government upside down aspect”
And that is a very valid fear. But let us look at the best predictor of future performance, past actions. If you perform even a cursory examination , you would be running from Trump like he was carrying the plague
They say that as if it is a bad thing.
We should have such bad relations with Mexico that millions of them refuse to migrate here, and millions of them leave here to go back home..
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2010)
Patent case, deepfryer.
Cruz won.
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2007)
Do states violate the Eight Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment by imposing the death sentence for the crime of child rape? Case won by defendant.
Cruz loss.
Medellin v. Texas (2007)
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention gives any foreign national detained for a crime the right to contact his consulate. Texas refused to allow contact or to review, on the second trial (2004-1st attempt).
Cruz won the right for Texas to ignore the Vienna convention and execute Medellin. Good precedent for State's rights but unnecessarily abrasive and combatative, since allowing the consulate to speak would not have changed the outcome.
Panetti v. Quarterman (2006)
Does the Eighth Amendment permit the execution of an inmate who has a factual awareness of the State's stated reason for his execution, but who lacks, due to mental illness, a rational understanding of the State's justification? Supreme Court found for the defendant.
Cruz lost
Smith v. Texas (2006)
LaRoyce Smith was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. In 2004, the Supreme Court overturned his death sentence and sent the case back to state court because of a judge's improper jury instruction. (See Smith v. Texas , No. 04-5323.) Nevertheless, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals re-imposed the sentence. Supremes found for the defedant.
Cruz lost.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2005)
Did the Texas legislature violate the Constitution and and the Voting Rights Act when it used 2000 census data to redistrict in 2003 for partisan advantage, resulting in districts that (by 2003 numbers) did not conform to the one person, one vote standard?
Cruz won.
Medellín v. Dretke (2004)
Cruz failed to win case returned to lower court see (2007 above)
Dretke v. Haley (2003)
Haley was convicted in Texas state courts of a felony theft of a calculator and sentenced as a habitual felony offender (extending his sentence to 16.5 years instead of the maximum of 2years for his actual crime). The Supreme Court found that the lower court had erred,
Cruz lost.
This is a particularly egregious miscarriage of justice and should have been remedied not pursued. A little-noticed Supreme Court case represents a huge injustice
Frew v. Hawkins (2003)
Texas was supposed to improve health care for poor children to comply with a federally mandated program called Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment. Two years later, Frew and others remained unsatisfied that Texas was complying with the federal requirements, and asked the court to force Texas to create a plan for how it would improve health care. The Supreme Court found for the plaintiff.
Cruz lost. Three wins out of 9 cases.
here are the details. The last information is a blight, but I personally know a case where a paralegal lost a VA case because of her stupidity. Vet died because no one did CPR. Anyway...
“Ted Cruz was tireless in searching for every possible opportunity, not just to talk about, but to implement and execute, a conservative constitutional vision for the country,” said James Ho, Cruz’s successor as Texas solicitor general.
In his first Supreme Court case in 2003, Cruz argued Texas shouldn’t have to honor an agreement to improve health coverage for poor children. He lost 9-0.
The following year, Cruz implored the Supreme Court to uphold a 16-year prison sentence for a man convicted of stealing a calculator from Wal-Mart. The justices remanded the case to a lower court, which sentenced the man to time served.
The case Cruz most trumpets brought him to the Supreme Court twice and involved a Mexican national named Jose Ernesto Medellin.
Medellin was convicted of the rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston in 1993, but wasn’t notified of his right to contact Mexican diplomats upon arrest, as dictated by the 1963 Vienna Convention. The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that U.S. courts should review the convictions and sentences for Medellin and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners because of the treaty violation.
President George W. Bush directed state courts to review such cases, and Texas sued.
“It was an unusual circumstance,” Cruz, who once worked for Bush’s presidential campaign and administration, told The Associated Press in 2014. “Especially when the president was a Texan, was a Republican and was a friend.”
[soooo now we know why GW hates Cruz!]
The Supreme Court first sent the case back to state courts. Upon hearing it a second time, the justices sided with Texas 6-3 and Medellin was executed.
In 2006, Cruz defended congressional redistricting maps drawn by Texas’ GOP-controlled Legislature. The Supreme Court didn’t declare them unconstitutional, despite claims they deliberately dispersed the voting power of the state’s growing Hispanic population. But it did rule that a sprawling South Texas congressional district had to be redrawn.
Two more Cruz Supreme Court arguments came in 2007 and involved the death penalty.
Cruz argued a man convicted of killing a former Taco Bell co-worker should be executed despite the jury not being instructed to consider several factors, including his having been abused as a child. Cruz also defended the death sentence of a killer whose schizophrenia meant he might not be able to understand why he was being executed. He lost both 5-4.
Cruz also lost 5-4 his final case as solicitor general, an unsuccessful defense of states’ imposing the death penalty in cases of child rape. It originated in Louisiana, but Cruz served as lead attorney for 10 states.
In his filings, Cruz overlooked that in 2006, Congress had modified the military’s justice code to add child rape as a crime punishable by death. He was so worried that The New York Times would write that his office “screwed up by not finding” that statue that he wrote to another attorney via email: “Would love to have some sort of response, so we don’t look silly.”
by the way, who are the judges?
Exactly. That’s what principled conservatives do: Do what’s right, regardless of the political consequences.
Why does Mexico have a problem with us killing murders in jail after a court process when they have people shot dead all over the place at home who are INNOCENT in their streets?
Maybe tend to their own garden weeds before worrying about ours.
No you’d’ be wrong.
Sen. Cruz argued 9 cases before SCOTUS and won 6
sorry
5 wins 4 lossos
The government of Mexico and Mexicans in general have been ripping of the US for the past hundred years.
Illegal alien convicted. Was not known as Mexican national, claimed he was US citizen. Then later well after conviction and facing ultimate punishment, then he claims diplomatic rights.
If Texas lost then all illegals need do is wait until the right time and then petition for case/charges/sentence to be set-aside.
Ah, so that is why they heard the case again?
Mexico makes up an irrational reason to be mad at the USA, and it’s Ted Cruz’ fault?
The people would buy the argument need to grow up and behave like adults.
Again, that is YOUR opinion. But, that isn’t how I read those cases. On one case, Cruz asked for the case to be remanded back to the state, and they did - that is a win. Although you and several others consider that a loss.
To me, a partial win at the Supreme Court, is a win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.