Can somebody explain what's going on here to me?

I understand the basics of the case, and that the most conservative judges seem to be disagreeing w/the admin here, but beyond that - I don't know, hasn't it seemed that these more conservative judges have generally been willing to give the admin what it wants?

The article is so horribly written it's difficult to even tell who thinks what.

"Medellin's attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court and said a Texas court ruling that Bush had overstepped his powers and put the United States in violation of its undisputed treaty obligations."

Er...

I checked the CNN version of the same story and I think I get it a little better - Bush ordered the case reopened, but he did so under pressure, after an international court complained that Medillin had been denied access to his consulate when arrested - this being in violation of a decades-old treaty. So Bush orders the case reopened to pacify the international court, and the Bush-friendly justices determine that he hasn't got the authority to do so, relieving him of a responsibility he wasn't particularly enthusiastic about exercising. Business as usual, right?

yeah, that seemed like the obvious answer as soon as i saw the words 'international court'

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/states-win-over-president-on-criminal-law-issue/

This may help??

yeah & the states rights thing too