mycatharsis.com

A victory for judicial conservatism over political conservatism from today’s Supreme Court… In Medellin vs Texas, the court insists that the President can’t simply rule by fiat, telling the states what to do and expecting them to follow suit.

One problem I’ve had with this administration is a pervasive belief that the ends make the means irrelevant.  Basically, any manner of illogic that gets the desired result is a-ok with this group…

(b) The United States marshals two principal arguments in favor
of the President’s authority to establish binding rules of decision that
preempt contrary state law.  The United States argues that the rele-
vant treaties give the President the authority to implement the
Avena judgment and that Congress has acquiesced in the exercise of
such authority.  The United States also relies upon an “independent”
international dispute-resolution power.  We find these arguments, as
well as Medellín’s additional argument that the President’s Memo-
randum is a valid exercise of his “Take Care” power, unpersuasive.
Pp. 29–37.

Basically, the government argued that international law gave the President the power to tell Texas what to do! No wonder this 6-3 decision against the administration included all the courts conservative members.  Failing that, the respondent then argued that the President could essentially rule by fiat thru the use of his Memorandums and Executive Orders, which also was rejected.  Too bad no money was involved here, else the administration could have simply claimed the Commerce Clause applies here and probably would have won!
It’s probably not really possible to celebrate a decision that allows the state to move ahead with their executions. But it sure sounds like the court exercised due prudence in limiting the power of the President over the states here, and hopefully gives the administration a tiny dose of reality as they work thru their last year in office.