Posted on 11/29/2010 11:59:46 AM PST by gwjack
Tells you everything you need to know.
“islam” is the beard.... to make something evil look not so
Some OK judge now needs to cite international law and sentence the next death penalty convict to beheading.
the so called “professional” career says it all..... what a crock.... move over obamanation, about being the least qualified of anyone in the room.......
Amazing actually as Islam, Sharia, Jihad, Jiwhiz, and everything else to do with the Moozie's IS excessive government entangled with religion.
Not sure about her faith, but she is hyphenated.
Gwjack
This picture of jihadists stoning helpless victims to death shows that Rudyard Kipling and Ann Coulter were right:
“Take up the White Man’s Burden.” (This was written in an era in which Japan was the only advanced nation that was not Caucasian-majority or even exclusively Caucasian, and the more generic “Western Civilization’s Burden” would be better today.)
“Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
“Underneath the starry flag/ Civilize ‘em with a Krag.”
“AG, Treasurer, Superintendent of Instruction (or whatever Barresi was elected to), Auditor, and even local dog catchers” were included in the etc because I couldn’t remember all the offices that the Republicans now or will hold. Sink or swim for sure.
Really going to be interesting to hear the ACLU’s take on this.
Eugene Volokh runs a blog discussing legal issues, and has been covering the issue extensively. He raises some valid points about defects in the OK amendment in this entry:
Others have made similar arguments, arguing against any American court consideration of foreign Islamic court rulings, and of Islamic law. I think those arguments are mistaken, and here’s why.Bottom line: there are cases where an American court needs to look at foreign law in order to establish certain facts regarding the case being considered. This does not mean that the US court is making its rulings according to foreign law.Every year, millions of people from other countries legally come to America, whether as citizens, permanent residents, temporary workers, students, tourists, or whatever else.
American law naturally wants to know certain things about them. Are they married? If they were married, are they divorced? Were the supposed adoptive children they’re bringing with them really adopted? How about the property they’re bringing with them — who really owns it? If they go back to their country of origin, and come back claiming that they divorced the spouses that are still living there, are they telling the truth?
The way that American law generally answers these questions is by looking at the law of the foreign country in which the actions initially took place, especially if the parties to those actions were citizens or residents of that country — for instance, the place where the marriage supposedly took place, where the supposed divorce or adoption decree was procured, or where the property was acquired. If the question is whether a marriage contracted in France between two French citizens is valid, you look to whether the law of France was properly complied with in entering into the marriage. If the question is whether two Taiwanese properly divorced in Taiwan, you look at the divorce decree from the Taiwanese court, and if there are questions about its validity or scope you consult Taiwanese law. (If someone goes to Taiwan to divorce his Canadian wife, who has never been to Taiwan, that divorce decree might not be credited, on the theory that the court lacked jurisdiction over the wife. But if someone goes back to Taiwan to divorce his Taiwanese wife, especially one who has no contact with America, American courts would have no trouble viewing that Taiwanese judgment as dispositive of the husband’s marital status when he comes to America again.)
This is not some newfangled international law theory. This is deeply established American law — specifically the body of law called “choice of law” — which has long called for the consideration of foreign law in such situations.
Ping
The judicial system seriously needs to be overhauled to keep judges from legislating from the bench, and from going against the will of voters for political or philosophical reasons. These judges have got to be stopped because ultimately they are dictators who hold power over everyone else. Yes- Even congress. We need to write whatever laws are necessarily to stop them. And we cannot allow them to rule against such law which is the first thing they would do.
Catch ‘em. Hang ‘em. Done.
I hear ya. The ruling class, leftist establishment seems to insist on pushing us where they really don't want us to go.
Caution: This can of Whoop-Ass is under pressure. Exercise extreme caution when handling. Contents will fully discharge, once activated.
University of Ghana, 1973
Special assistant, African Development Group, Washington, DC, 1980-1981
Lecturer, Women’s Studies Program, University of Maryland, 1981
Obviously Amish.
Holy Cow! When will this stop? I’m tired of leftist judge subverting the will of the people.
Are those happy people celebrateing Rhamadan?
Or is that an Iftar dinner?
You’ll have to excuse me, Im an Infidel.
I agree. People need to stand up to these judges. At some point they need to be reckoned with. They make their rulings and the Governors and legislatures act like there is nothing they can do. Judges are becoming like little emperors.
Sad to say it ain’t just the leftists; we’ve got plenty of morons in the GOP who sing the same song, and the real tragedy is that “traitor” has lost all impact. You can find a for-real traitor, and call him out on it, and NOBODY gives a fig.
You occasionally hear or read people saying things like, “If this or that were to happen the country’d be lost for sure.” Well, for my money, until we get back to some DIRECT justice — where the perp goes from the crime scene directly to the f’n morgue on a consistent basis — the country pretty much IS lost already.
What good is it to have courts that serve primarily to INSULATE the guilty from the consequences Justice demands, and to stonewall the people from enacting legislation by lawful processes?
THAT is an impeachable offense! It’s an abuse of judicial power that HAS TO BE met with a resounding, repeatable, and permanent response from the people.
Resounding, because otherwise nobody will give a damn.
Repeatable, because more than just one judge needs it.
Permanent, because no judge so removed should EVER be allowed to hold ANY office of any degree in any jurisdiction at all ever again in their entire life.
Finally, I think you’re dead-on about the pressure in that can. Those who would toss it into the fires of adversity should be soberly forewarned as to the violently explosive repercussions that would immediately ensue.
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.