John W. Lillpop
Mention strong enforcement of the Rule of Law and the name Barack Obama does not immediately pop to mind.
Obama’s flippant disregard for the War Powers Resolution and application to war in Libya; his refusal to secure the U.S.-Mexican border and enforce U.S. immigration laws; his sidestepping of the Congress via a vast left-wing conspiracy of stealth czars; and his sponsorship of ObamaCare, all point to a dictatorial tyrant intent on ruling by fiat, rather than by Democratic rule of law.
However, Obama’s anti-Rule of Law fetish went missing when the president became aware of an illegal alien Hispanic in need of intervention in Texas.
The plight of Humberto Leal Garcia, an illegal alien convicted of a brutal rape and murder 17 years ago, became vital to Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy. It became Obama’s mission to lobby the U.S. Supreme Court and delay the execution of Garcia, said execution scheduled for July 7.
In full campaign mode, President Obama flexed his liberal muscles and dispatched a 30-page epistle to the SCOTUS. which essentially argued that executing Garcia would violate international law and "would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international law obligation."
Obama argued for a delay to give the U.S. Congress time to craft a law more favorable to the convicted murderer and rapist, who was also an Mexican citizen.
As reported at the reference, the SCOTUS was neither convinced nor amused by Obama’s plea:
“Refusing to defer to President Obama’s view of a threat to U.S. foreign relations, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 late Thursday afternoon to allow Texas to execute a Mexican national whose international treaty rights were violated in his prosecution for murder. The Court majority dismissed as “free-ranging assertions” the President’s foreign policy arguments against the immediate execution of Humberto Leal Garcia, and added that the Obama Administration had not presented “a persuasive legal claim.”Hmm.
The Obama Administration had not presented a “persuasive legal claim”?
One would expect much, much better from an alleged professor of law and Harvard Law School graduate.
Shortly after the SCOTUS rejected Obama’s “free-ranging assertions” and lack of “persuasive legal claim,” Texas law, and common sense, prevailed and the brutal killer-rapist was put to death.
Still, not all is lost: Obama can remind Hispanics and illegal aliens that he went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on their behalf.
Obama can also claim that he championed the Rule of Law—even though it was international law that would have usurped American law had the president’s argument not been so devoid of “persuasive legal claim” and had it not been riddled with “free-ranging assertions.”
Viva Texas justice!
http://nclawtalk.net/?p=313
