Skip to comments.Order Blocks Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment
Posted on 11/08/2010 10:32:14 AM PST by gwjack
A temporary restraining order has been issued to block a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the ruling this morning in Oklahoma City following a brief hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
Dhimmi liberal judges who want to impose Sharia upon us.
In order to issue a TRO the judge must find that it’s more likely than not the movant will prevail on the merits of the case. I’d love to see how the Judge came to that legal conclusion.
Another idiot judge. A woman no less. Who appointed her?
Of the judges in the Western District, M-G was the only one that I had concerns about. I stilll have a hard time believing a state judge would find Sharia Law persuasive in either criminal or civil matters.
It sorta remiand me of the white lawyer making an argument to a black judge in 1983. He argued certain international law should be applied. He was in favor of the law of South Africa. I would have been too embarrassed to ask a black judge to follow non-binding South African law. Oh, this was before the end of apartheid.
What about the will of the people?
And it was done in the approved legal method, it was put out to the voters to decide.
Vickie is an idiotic, over advanced incompetent. There is no way this was ripe for a challenge. The 10th Circuit should reverse. The only way an Muslim could be harmed by this amendment would be if a Muslim asked for relief under Sharia Law and was denied. This amendment controls the courts of Oklahoma not Muslims.
Considering CAIR said they would never ask for Sharia Law in Oklahoma, how can they be harmed by this constitutional amendment?
Recall this kook.
The People Have Spoken...
(and the court said ‘sit down and shut up’....)
Is Oklahoma the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (thank heaven they aren’t in the 9th!)? Maybe this lib judge will get a nice smackdown.
“The order was sought in a lawsuit by Oklahoma Muslim Muneer Awad. Awad is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma and said during the hearing that the law stigmatizes his religion.”
Presumably by the incorporation doctrine, applied to Amendment I, first clause.
Look, banning Islam is going to require a Federal constitutional amendment. That is true without question.
Work on it, by all means, but don't waste time on state or Federal legislation, because it's not going to work.
It looks like the federal courts will side with the Islamo-fascists just like they have sided with the Mexican fascists.
It is distressing to know that we have more traitors and foreign operatives trying to bring down the United States internally than we have abroad.
And the federal judiciary will give them carte blanche to do whatever they want in the United States.
No, it is in the 10th Circuit in Denver.
Ah, a quick read through her wikipedia bio confirmed what I knew even before I looked.
Remember when we had John Mohammad running around the DC area shooting people, the Mayor back in Portland was this woman who tried to prevent the FBI, etc, from INVESTIGATING local situations that might have involved John. She had several Moslem boyfriends.
The amendment is pre-emptive anyway. We have plenty of time before it is actually needed.
Sharia law is completely incompatible with the constitution anyway. If this amendment is struck down, it will be because it is unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see what twisted logic is used to support that position.
Must be a "wise black woman".
Isn’t it time for states to just tell these judges to stick their orders where the sun don’t shine?
What’s the judge gonna do...send in the Marines?
The territorial jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit includes the six states of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.
Let me see if I understand this....a JUDGE who is simply an opinion to an issue of the people who PASSED a constitutional issue in their state has STOPPED the people from doing their will?
Impeach her, remover her and JAIL HER for 20 years at hard labor. I am damned sick and tired of judges like this and worse, I am sick of the people thinking they can do nothing about it.
“Stigmatizes his religion”. So is he an outspoken critic of the Saudi theocratic Islamic system of government then?
Saudi Arabia is funding the establishment of Islamic colonies and learning centers in the US.
See my tagline.
Educated in Ghana, Vassar and Howard University, she’s a former Democrat State Senator appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1994.
Nobody tried to “ban Islam”, rather they banned a theocratic legal and political system (Sharia law). How in the world could that conflict with the first amendment?
I would call this judge treasonous.
It is permissible to lie to the kufir.
Please explain. This is not a free speach issue - it is about what constitutes the “law” that judges are interpreting.
Keep it up judges. You’re next!
Keep it up judges. You’re next!
OK should just IGNORE this judge and press on like she doesn’t even exist. Civility is voluntary.
I’m surprised she did not add that gay marriage will now be legal in OK too.
The answer is no surprise.
It was almost a rhetorical question.
A full reading of Wikipedia reveals that she is a poster child of liberal feminism and angst.
Run her out on a rail!!
I thought judges were supposed to follow the laws and statutes enacted by the legislature. I guess they only wish to do so when it suits them.
If he read the news he’d quickly realize it does a pretty good job of stigmatizing itself.
Is Glamour Shots still in business or is this photo from the 80’s?
Muslim activities stigmatize their ‘religion’.
Has happened over & over again in California.
Voters wishes have been turned over by the courts a number of times.
A FReeper wrote last night something to the effect that “Marxism is a religion posing as a political system, and Islam is a political system posing as a religion”.
Sounds about right to me.
Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional??
CAIR understands the important of this: it erects a firewall against the gradual implementation of Sharia. If the amendment stands, it will becpome a model nationwide and it will spur an elightened disucssion of Islam and Sharia. They want to fly under the radar.
Response: Yep. A disaster on the bench.
Translation fro her academic qualifications: She never went to a real School with credentials that would allow legitimate study of the 'Law'( not U.S Law anyway).
A certificate from the University of Ghana qualifies her to drink Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.
The overwhelming majority of Students at Howard University still think O.J. was not guilty. So much for their 'Law Review'.
Conclusion: Typical of the quality of Federal Judges that President Clinton appointed when everybody was watching Monica and her worn out Knee-pads.
again!!! way too much of this judicial legislating crap all across this country. DEM appointed judges in general are a huge problem to our liberty and self governance
So much for the liberation of women.
Can’t wait for the first case in Oklahoma where the Muslim man’s defense is that he had to murder his wife/daughter under the dictates of Sharia honor killing.
Which one - Bill or Hillary?
Did she “do” Bill first?
How can the election board be prevented from certifying the election results if the question is a matter of constitutionality, not a question of whether or not the election was legal (fair)?
I am assuming this case is NOT brought on grounds of voting irregularities.
This doesn't ban Islam. It bans the use of Sharia in court, which could be used to harm non-Muslims and women, which would violate the US Constitution's currently guaranteed equal protection.
But even if it were an amendment to the US Constitution, somehow a liberal judge would find a way to throw it out as unconstitutional. If you're putting it in the Constitution, that would mean it's unconstitutional right now, so the act of trying to put it into the Constitution is unconstitutional. Nice catch-22.
Then, how is it that other states have such laws?