Talk:Medellín v. Texas: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:39, 21 July 2010

U.S. Supreme Court cases B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law B‑class

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Medellín v. Texas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,519 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Medellín v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the U.S. President lacks the power to enforce decisions of the International Court of Justice?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/March.

Wikipedia

Minority

Did any of the dissenters write an opinion? It's not in the article if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. While the article's exposition of the court's ruling is pretty well laid out, a discussion of the dissent should've been included. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to write a description of the dissent (if there was one). The article can be edited by anyone. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breyer wrote the dissent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BestDelegateDotCom (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, the State of Texas does not know of law and behaves as a rogue state. However, in my standpoint, the sentence of death punishment was right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.159.214.249 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can cite some examples of Texas behaving as a "rogue state". I won't be holding my breath.