|
Clarence Thomas on Foreign Policy
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. Bush Sr. 1991)
|
|
|
Supported stock divestiture from South Africa
SENATOR SIMON: Your friend Jay Parker has been, for many years, a lobbyist for the Government of South Africa. Were you aware of that? JUDGE THOMAS: I became aware of that. He is an honest individual, and I didn’t question him about his personal
activities and his businesses. I became aware through the news media, as you did, about this particular activity.
SIMON: Now, he is quoted as saying he informed you in 1981 about that. You don’t recall that.
THOMAS: I don’t recall it.
I knew he represented some of the homelands in South Africa at some point. I was not aware, again, of the representation of South Africa itself.
On the issue of South Africa, however, let me make this point: I took a strong position on the board of
trustees of Holy Cross that we divest of stocks in South Africa. That was important to me then, and, of course, that is contrary to a position that [Parker] might take. But it is one that I felt strongly about.
Source: 1991 SCOTUS Senate Confirmation Hearings
, Sep 11, 1991
Vienna Convention treaty not binding on US courts.
Justice Thomas joined the Court's decision on MEDELLIN v. TEXAS on Mar 25, 2008:
After his conviction for murder, Mexican citizen Jose Medellin argued on appeal that police should have complied with the Vienna Convention and asked if he wanted his consulate notified of his arrest. Texas courts held that Medellin should have made this argument before trial. Separately, the UN's International Court of Justice heard a case involving Medellin, brought by Mexico against the US, on failure to comply with the Convention. The ICJ held that Texas courts must provide Medellin with hearings on the issue.
HELD: Delivered by Roberts; joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, & Alito
The Vienna Convention was not "self-executing" but required further federal law for it to be binding upon US courts. The ICJ decision, further, was not binding on domestic courts since the country's obligations- was only to defend the case, not abide by an ICJ judgment, and
- under the UN charter was only to "undertake to comply" with ICJ decisions.
Mexico was the party before the ICJ, not Medellin, and he gained no personal rights from the ICJ ruling. Pres. Bush wrote that state courts should give effect to the Convention did not bind those courts, because the Constitution does not grant him this power without Senate consent.CONCURRED: Stevens concurs
The language of the UN Charter about a nation's obligation to heed an ICJ decision is too vague to be binding upon domestic courts.DISSENT: Filed by Breyer; joined by Souter & Ginsburg
Standards for self-execution cannot be made clear in multilateral treaties since each country has its legal traditions for treaties. However, since the Vienna convention concerns an individual right AND the Supremacy Clause subjugates domestic law to treaties AND the ICJ asked Texas courts to hold a hearing on a legal issue AND the President favors this and Congress does not oppose it, the Supreme Court ought to enforce the ICJ decision.
Source: Supreme Court case 08-MEDELL argued on Oct 10, 2007
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022