Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law
Politico.com ^ | November 8, 2010 | Josh Gerstein

Posted on 11/08/2010 9:15:53 PM PST by garybob

A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued a temporary restraining order barring the state from adopting a constitutional amendment voters passed last week that forbids state courts from enforcing Islamic law, also known as Shariah.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: shariahlaw
Memo to Oklahoma: Don't pass laws that your masters don't want you to have.
1 posted on 11/08/2010 9:15:58 PM PST by garybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: garybob

this judge needs to be impeached for mental problems.... in other words, for being a traitor to the United States of America... NOT the nasty cults in the far east.


2 posted on 11/08/2010 9:18:43 PM PST by bareford101 (Be loud! We have nothing – NOTHING - to apologize for in fighting for our Country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

OK SHOULD TELL THE JUDGE TO EAT **** AND IMPLEMENT IT ANYWAY.


3 posted on 11/08/2010 9:20:54 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

Braking news - public bans judge!


4 posted on 11/08/2010 9:22:02 PM PST by Libloather (Teapublican, PROUD birther, mobster, pro-lifer, anti-warmer, enemy of the state, extremist....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

Judge Vicki? HAHAHHAHAA
Let’s review, could Vicki be a judge in...
say... Suadi Arabia? Iraq? Iran? Pakistan?
Wow! She should be disbarred for even a temporary stay.

“Sharia is no less toxic when it comes to the sorts of democratic government and civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to this legal code of Saudi Arabia and Iran, only Allah can make laws, and only a theocrat can properly administer them, ultimately on a global basis.”

- former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney


5 posted on 11/08/2010 9:29:22 PM PST by foldspace (Barak Obama is still not a criminal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob
A black woman appointed by Clinton.

Too stupid to realize that she would be the first victim of Sharia law.

6 posted on 11/08/2010 9:30:07 PM PST by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob
Thoms Sowell eviscerated judges just like this arrogant behar here.
7 posted on 11/08/2010 9:35:10 PM PST by Hunton Peck (Endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob
I live in California, don't hold that against me, please. I am sick and tired of how we, the people, can vote and win and one person, a judge, can overrule all of us and tell us we are wrong and they are right. Why can't we impeach judges? We need to get rid of all the judges on the 9th Circus Court in California.
If Sharia law or socialism takes full effect, the media and the judges are one of the first to be killed and they are the ones leading to their deaths. Go figure.
8 posted on 11/08/2010 9:43:16 PM PST by Nitehawk0325 (I have the right to remain silent, but I lack the ability...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

Don’t judges swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution? He needs to be removed from office.


9 posted on 11/08/2010 9:43:28 PM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

Pardon me...I didn’t realize it was a she, which is even more ironic since she couldn’t even drive a car under Sharia law. Thanks, Bill Clinton, for another worthless affirmative action judge.


10 posted on 11/08/2010 9:45:30 PM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

right? How can a judge overturn a constitutional amendment? That is the one thing that overrides terrible judges...


11 posted on 11/08/2010 9:46:26 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: garybob

So a single judge has more power than all the citizen voters of a state? Unbelievable!


12 posted on 11/08/2010 9:49:53 PM PST by Undocumented_capitalist (Pure is the enemy of good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

What state court in Oklahoma would even try to impose
Shariah law?
Even though the judge is an idiot, it seems like a non issue
to me.


13 posted on 11/08/2010 9:53:30 PM PST by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

A “judge” bars Oklahoma from implementing a constitutional amendment, duly voted by the people of Oklahoma, in FAVOR of allowing Shariah Law to be used in Oklahoma courts???

God help us. Literally. Please.


14 posted on 11/08/2010 9:55:00 PM PST by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bareford101

Why was this even up for a vote?


15 posted on 11/08/2010 9:57:46 PM PST by o-n-money
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: garybob

SCREW HIM!

Tell this “judge” to go pound sand...

Better yet, drag his sorry butt from the bench and throw this treasonous rump swab down a flight of stairs!

I am getting so fed up with “federal” ... Screw the whole damned federal government... They can all go straight to hell.


16 posted on 11/08/2010 9:59:33 PM PST by TCH (DON'T BE AN "O-HOLE"! ... DEMAND YOUR STATE ENACT ITS SOVEREIGNTY !When a majority of the American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob
Sharia law is religious law intended for a muslim people. Our Constitution purposely put a stopper on one religious group from imposing its religion on others.

This needs to go straight to the Supreme Court and be decided once an for all.

Well, if we are lucky.

17 posted on 11/08/2010 10:02:06 PM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
OK SHOULD TELL THE JUDGE TO EAT **** AND IMPLEMENT IT ANYWAY.

You can say it...shiite!

18 posted on 11/08/2010 10:03:13 PM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: garybob

Most likely, this amendment was little more than a political stunt to bring more people to the polls.


19 posted on 11/08/2010 10:11:29 PM PST by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nitehawk0325
If Sharia law or socialism takes full effect, the media and the judges are one of the first to be killed and they are the ones leading to their deaths. Go figure.

They aren't afraid because they know that they, today's holders of power, will remain in power. Only their offices will be renamed.

Here is an example. In the old USSR there were thousands of Party bosses. Then USSR fell. Do you think those Party bosses were lined up against the wall and shot? No way. They took over the reforms and became leaders of the change, changing their "beliefs" as a snake changes his skin. In the end they became filthy rich, having purchased (for token money or for free) most of the industry.

This example is not lost on the USA, and politicians here know exactly what to do and how to do it to remain in power. They may need to change their faith, their allegations, their friends and everything else - but that's hardly a problem for a politician... they do such things seven times before breakfast.

20 posted on 11/08/2010 10:26:48 PM PST by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: garybob
The executive director of the local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muneer Awad, filed suit over the measure, claiming that it violates religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Awad said, for instance, that the measure could preclude the courts from enforcing or executing his will, since it includes references to Islamic law.

An example of Allah's will

21 posted on 11/08/2010 10:33:08 PM PST by henbane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob
What about this issue is so hard to understand? We operate under the principle of separation of church and state. Every individual is free to worship as he pleases or not worship, but specific religions are not to be intertwined with the law. There is no Christian law or Judaic law recognized in our courts as such. Within Islam there is no such separation. That's not news to anyone; it's obvious. Which is exactly why we must never allow Islamic law to achieve the status of law in this country. Muslims are quite free to practice their religion within the bounds of the laws of this nation. It's the camel's nose under the tent. Forgive my going on and on. I just don't get why people don't see this. It's simple.
22 posted on 11/08/2010 11:16:09 PM PST by ArmyTeach (Vincit qui se vincit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

Update from a recent post: Newly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets in England, Luftur Rahman, opines that Islam is incompatible with democracy ... QED


23 posted on 11/08/2010 11:31:47 PM PST by ArmyTeach (Vincit qui se vincit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob
According to unofficial results, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly adopted the measure by a vote of 70 percent in favor to 30 percent opposed. The proposal also included a ban on state courts' use of international law.

OK, I am pretty sure there are not that many Muslims in Oklahoma, so who are the idiots who make up that 30 percent.

24 posted on 11/08/2010 11:36:13 PM PST by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob
Awad said, for instance, that the measure could preclude the courts from enforcing or executing his will, since it includes references to Islamic law.

If this man’s will include references to Islamic Law he should get a new lawyer and sue his old one for male practice.

Such references would be easy pickings for a sharp lawyer contesting the will to have it broken in the courts.

25 posted on 11/08/2010 11:42:00 PM PST by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

Ground temperature is the cure!


26 posted on 11/09/2010 1:49:49 AM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

No surprise here. Federal judges make all the important laws these days. When will we stop enforcing them?


27 posted on 11/09/2010 2:45:10 AM PST by WilliamHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Send her a copy of Marbury v. Madison and order her to submit in writing what part of John Marshalls’ opinion does she not understand? Judges are administered an Oath or affirm to defend the US Constitution. The men who wrote and ratified that Supreme Law of the land intended the US Constitution
Not sharia Law,nor any foreign system to have precedence over our US Constitution. IF the Judge goes further she will have
overreached like that judge in Riverside on DADT repeal—and will have violated her solemn Oath -and ought not be retained-but IMPEACHED.


28 posted on 11/09/2010 5:04:42 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AlexW

Once upon a time in America I thought it unreasonable for a judge to redefine “marriage” but look at the mess created when
Mass. did just that. The Constitutional amendment is the last resort to reign in activist Judges short of open rebellion.
IMO we need to reassert the founding idea that the Judiciary is by design intended to be the weakest branch -wholly dependent upon the Executive and Legislative as the Constitutional check on a despotic branch.I would consider Impeachment.


29 posted on 11/09/2010 5:10:47 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: o-n-money

because Islam is not compatible with our system of government a democratic republic of laws applied equally to all. And
because Islam and the Christians and Jews have been at war since their mad prophet crawled form his cave. And because since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in th elate decade of the 1970’s there has been an ever increasing expansion of
Islam -have we forgotten 9-11-01—or the Ft.Hood Jihad by
one trusted by the US Army as an Officer? Nearly forty incidents recorded in partial list of Islamic terror world wide in th elast two months on website www.religionofpeace.com


30 posted on 11/09/2010 5:16:25 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: garybob

As I understand this law and the use thereof, it would be limited to state courts only. Therefore, the judge has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to interfere. OK should send a local sheriff and arrest her for obstruction of justice.

No right to interfere, assuming that we still have voting rights and the states are not agents of the federal government. Given that judges have routinely overturned the will of the voters, the ballot box is as endeangered as a RINO at CPAC.

BTW, where is ACLU and their “separation of church and state”? Crickets.


31 posted on 11/09/2010 7:38:04 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garybob

What is a judge going to do? Tell her to piss off.


32 posted on 11/09/2010 7:41:39 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

I know Muslims don’t want to assimilate with the west. They come to divide and conquer. You didn’nt answer my question.
In order for sharia law to be put up to a vote, a legislator had to sponsor it. Then voted in committee. You just don’t put crap like this on a ballot.


33 posted on 11/09/2010 6:48:38 PM PST by o-n-money
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: o-n-money

Crap like this on a ballot—Hmmm I heard the OK Law read on
Bill Bennetts Morning in America. — I believe it was a credible reading.which part of it do think was crap? It reflects what men like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Story James Wilson and others have said about Constitutional
Interpretation.It is not in conflict with the rule of law as far as I can see.The Amendment merely stated what ought be obvious to all judges sworn to defend the US Constitution,
and all laws made pursuant to it.


34 posted on 11/10/2010 4:10:38 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Never mind the judge’s ruling. How did this issue (crap) get on a voting ballot in the first place?


35 posted on 11/10/2010 6:22:21 PM PST by o-n-money
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: o-n-money

Most probably by some lawyer acting on behalf of his clients-
writing a proposed ballot initiative under existing State Law
That is how such Ballot initiatives are usually accomplished here in Colorado.The Judiciary has been allowed to pass judgement often without regard to the US Constitution they swear to defend. And Liberals/ progressives of every stripe
love to play games with the written law applying the metaphysical refinements that Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Story wrote were not necessary and have no place in interpreting/ applying our law.I find it necessary and not crap at all.


36 posted on 11/11/2010 5:09:11 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson