The Supreme Court, confronting a case that tests the effect of international law in domestic death penalty cases, showed little interest Monday in deciding whether the U.S. government can deny foreign suspects access to legal help from their consulates.[...]
Several justices seemed wary of deciding who has final say on interpretation of that treaty state or federal courts, the U.S. president or an international tribunal after President Bush last month ordered new state court hearings for Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row.
"Isn't it true that the Texas proceeding could make this moot?" asked Justice John Paul Stevens. "We may be engaged in a lot of useless actions."
It's important to bring you this stuff, because in today's partisan judicial climate it's often ignored, even though the Supreme Court is always doing shit like this. When they can find any excuse not to rule on something, they won't rule on it. If the Supreme Court did the right thing, and decided that the Constitution is to be taken seriously as written and that the neither the state of Texas nor the president have the power to ignore treaties that have the force of US law, they would be decried as activist judges. As it is, it looks like they're going to pussy out and not even rule on the merits.
Remember that next time your conservative relatives start going off on those damn libruls legislating from the bench.