Skip to comments.Oklahoma City Judge Extends Ban on Prohibition of Sharia Law
Posted on 11/22/2010 11:16:47 AM PST by gwjack
An Oklahoma City federal judge today extended a temporary ban on implementation of a constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering international or Islamic law.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
Previous thread is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2623654/posts
A federal judge has no jurisdiction over state laws.
Apparently we are going to have to start impeaching judges over unconstitutional rulings in order to get their attention. They believe they are a law unto themselves and we need to find the way to school them.
So how can judges be purged...maybe we need a national movement to get this branch back.
Impeachment - which means you need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate for removal from office.
My memory is that federal judges serve lifetime for “good behavior.” Perhaps someone else willl know the grounds for impeachment of a federal judge. Oh, silly me, I can call Alcee Hastings, Dem Representative from Florida. He was impeached for bribery/corruption in the 80s.
Can we just assume this POS judge was appointed by Clintoon?
(retorical and sarcastic tag)
So our government is about to tell us that yes, Sharia law CAN BE used when making decisions?
Great - just great...
temp injuctions are premised on a substantial likelihood of success of the party seeking the injuction.
the judge is already biased.
Yes, this minority, female, former state representative, was appointed judge by “The Bent One.” She, due to seniority, is now Chief Judge in the Western District. As others observed she was educated in Kenya and Ghana. She got her law degree at Howard University. One of my lawyer buddies tells me that Howard holds the distinction of having a complete law class fail the bar exam in Maryland.
Holy cow. A Kenya connection and her whole class failed the bar. Now that’s got to be a resume enhancer for the dems! No doubt she’s headed to the SCOTUS. (eyeroll + sigh)
“No doubt shes headed to the SCOTUS.”
Another ‘wise’ liberalina. There are two credentials for a NoBama Supremes nomination: (1) must believe in shredding the Constitution; and (2) must fill a ‘victim’ demographic for quota purposes.
I’m recommending former Rep. Barbara Jordan.
She was disabled while living.
She was black.
She was extremely liberal.
She was a lesbian.
Let’s move beyond the dead voting into having the dead hold office. Law clerks can write opinions as if the person was still alive (like they did for senile Marshall and Brennan for years).
“Prop me up and keep on votin’”.
“She got her law degree at Howard University. One of my lawyer buddies tells me that Howard holds the distinction of having a complete law class fail the bar exam in Maryland.”
Howard is a black university.
Here’s how it works. White applicant to Harvard (not Howard) has 4.0 GPA and aces LSAT. Black applicant has 3.2 and scores much lower on LSAT. Both considered equal for application purposes plus black applicant will get scholarship if admitted.
As you drop down the tiers of law school from there, you’re reaching the dregs of the barrel by the time you hit a traditional black university for law school admission purposes. Credentials typically involve passing the mirror test (breathing) and a four year college degree in any major (such as black studies or gender studies) without minimum GPA requirement, etc.
The reverse racism hurts all involved except the liberals who created the system.
At every level, blacks are assumed to be unqualified because the majority who were accepted lack the grades and test scores of their white and asian counterparts. Even if a black candidate aced the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, there would be the inherent taint of the other 99% who got in with a bump from “affirmative” action.
And those who truly lack the competitive aptitude for the level they were admitted are passed through in the name of racial equality. Think soft bigotry of low expectations.
You Sir speak with much wisdom.....
Question: where in the federal Constitution is there given the power for “judicial review” of *ANY* law?
“where in the federal Constitution is there given the power for judicial review of *ANY* law?”
It’s in the Martian Chronicles. I forgot which page. Just take my word.
Thanks for your post. When I was in law school we thought that Bakke solved all the reverse discrimination in legal education. But (sigh), those were the days of earning and not entitlement.
Again, thank you for your post. I thought it important to advise of her “educational” background. Apparently my sarcastic feeling did not translate through.
If you ever get north of the Red River, let me know and I’ll buy you a cup of coffee.