Today in Supreme Court History: July 27, 1929

7/27/1929: The Geneva Conventions are signed by United States. The Supreme Court would consider the Conventions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).

The Roberts Court (2006)

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mahan v. Howell, 404 U.S. 1201 (decided July 27, 1971): in one of his last acts, Hugo Black refused to stay District Court order changing reapportionment done by Virginia legislature so that there was lesser disparity in population (7.2% vs. 16.4%); because of time pressures, and because the issues were complicated and the lower court judges were unanimous, Black did not believe that cert would be granted (in fact it was, after Black and Harlan retired -- and quickly died -- and were replaced by Powell and Rehnquist, and the Court reversed, letting the legislature's reapportionment stand, 410 U.S. 315, 1973)

[Dan Schiavetta]

One might see this as a rebuttal to Josh’s recent post. He called Powell and Rehnquist “failures” from a movement conservative point of view but they were more conservative than the Justices they replaced and as can be seen nudged the Court toward the current “independent legislature” idea.

[apedad]

More background info from 2006 on the Geneva Conventions and Hamdan:

The United States and the Geneva Conventions

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/united-states-and-geneva-conventions

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess it's worth remembering that the US signing a treaty doesn't mean squat. It's the Senate ratifying it that means something.

Yes, I know the Vienna convention says otherwise. Guess what: We didn't ratify it.

The Geneva conventions in question weren't ratified until January 7th, 1932. That's the date that actually means something.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it is a step in the process. There were earlier steps, too, like the years of negotiations.

It's just that people tend to forget that treaties only become law when ratified. And so place too much importance on a legally unbinding signature.