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

Skip to comments.

Judge blocks Okla. Islamic law vote certification
Associated Press ^ | Nov. 29, 2010

Posted on 11/29/2010 1:23:59 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A federal judge has granted a request to prevent the state of Oklahoma from certifying election results for a constitutional amendment that would bar state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange said Monday she granted the preliminary injunction against State Question 755 until she rules on the merits of a challenge to the law. The law was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in a Nov. 2 referendum.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; judicialactivism; mosqueandstate; sharialaw

1 posted on 11/29/2010 1:24:01 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Is this judge a dim-bulb-crat?

If yes, why bother?

The constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ constitution.


2 posted on 11/29/2010 1:27:23 PM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Can anyone please tell me how a court can simply throw out a state referendum that has passed with a vast majority approval?
And if the courts had a problem with the referendum why was it not stopped prior to the vote?
Thanks


3 posted on 11/29/2010 1:28:24 PM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) The more I see and know Obammy the more I think he's an a-hole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

Can anyone please tell me how a court can simply throw out a state referendum that has passed with a vast majority approval?

No elected officials with the balls to IGNORE the witch.


4 posted on 11/29/2010 1:30:33 PM PST by ZULU (No nation which tried to tolerate Islam escaped Islamization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

The state of Oklahoma should just ignore her order. It is called nullification. It is constitutional and part of our laws. Just ignore her stay. It is time to stand up against the evil, out-of-control federal government!


5 posted on 11/29/2010 1:31:27 PM PST by Doulos1 (Bitter Clinger Forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
No one listened when zero was being put up.

It has always been about the judges, since more and more "law" was determined by a court and not a Constitutional Congress.

We'd better face it and be prepared for revolution.

God bless Glenn Beck, but brother, they're rubbing our face in the $h!t of their own making.

6 posted on 11/29/2010 1:33:43 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
"Can anyone please tell me how a court can simply throw out a state referendum that has passed with a vast majority approval?"

That's not the strange part - federal courts hear challenges to referendums passed by states with some frequency. The strange part is that this judge found that someone had standing to sue before the law was even enacted. For a variety of reasons, I'm not quite sure how that works.

7 posted on 11/29/2010 1:34:03 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

Democrats, unable to win elections at the ballot boxes, have turned to the judiciary to effect the results “we deserve if we only weren’t too dumb to vote properly in the first place”.


8 posted on 11/29/2010 1:34:19 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

KLINTOON APPOINTEE


9 posted on 11/29/2010 1:35:50 PM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doulos1
It has to come before a jury before it can be nullified (if I understand correctly)

If a "case" never gets to a court (no one has standing regarding zero's BC, remember?) ... it can't be nullified.

What CAN happen is a defiant ignoring of the ruling and dare the gummint to come n' get us.

10 posted on 11/29/2010 1:36:18 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Democrats, unable to win elections at the ballot boxes, have turned to the judiciary to effect the results

Actually both parties are responsible. The Congress has the power to check the judiciary, but refuse to do so and have refused for years.

11 posted on 11/29/2010 1:36:46 PM PST by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Is this judge a dim-bulb-crat?

You have to ask?

12 posted on 11/29/2010 1:37:06 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange said Monday she granted the preliminary injunction against State Question 755 until she rules on the merits of a challenge to the law.

To make the best use of time, start drafting the articles of her impeachment now, to be introduced in the House in January.

13 posted on 11/29/2010 1:37:32 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

What I was referring to was State Legislature nullification not jury nullification, as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions.
Yes down-right ignoring the ruling would work too! Either way just say no to Bozo and the a$$clowns.


14 posted on 11/29/2010 1:41:50 PM PST by Doulos1 (Bitter Clinger Forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Yes - this judge is a Clinton appointee (if what I remember reading is correct).

But exactly what authority does this judge have to block certification of election results? It is one thing to issue an injunction against implementation of a law, but to block certification?

The absolute ONLY reason a judge could possibly have jurisdiction over the certification of election results is if there are questions about the voting itself (massive evidence of widespread voter fraud being a good example). Block the certification of the process was faulty. But this judge is WAY out of line blocking certification of this measure - there are no questions of the integrity of the vote itself.

OK and TX need to join up and both press forward a bill in their state legislatures taking steps to leave the Union. Several other states should join in with them... but don’t have the backbone in their legislatures... but OK and TX just might.


15 posted on 11/29/2010 1:46:31 PM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
And if the courts had a problem with the referendum why was it not stopped prior to the vote?

Because if the referendum lost then the point would be moot?

-PJ

16 posted on 11/29/2010 1:50:09 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

hey judge...

The states are guaranteed military and civil defense by the federal government, which is also obligated by Article IV, Section Four, to “guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.”

how is Sharia a republican form of government ?


17 posted on 11/29/2010 1:52:04 PM PST by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Perhaps the judge should be investigated to see if there is any money traceable back to Saudi Arabia, CAIR, Hamas, Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan in any of her accounts....
18 posted on 11/29/2010 1:54:42 PM PST by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This decision can and should be ignored, because the Constitution does not grant any power to any branch of the Federal government to control certification of any State election, unless there is an allegation or finding that the election was administered illegally.


19 posted on 11/29/2010 1:55:58 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
*Can anyone please tell me how a court can simply throw out a state referendum that has passed with a vast majority approval?
And if the courts had a problem with the referendum why was it not stopped prior to the vote?*

“Infidels”* vs. Islamic influenced government.

*Infidel= Patriotic American

20 posted on 11/29/2010 1:57:03 PM PST by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doulos1
*The state of Oklahoma should just ignore her order. It is called nullification. It is constitutional and part of our laws. Just ignore her stay. It is time to stand up against the evil, out-of-control federal government!*

Exactly!

That's what Arizona should do against the unconstitutional suit brought against them for wanting to protect their border.

Ignore the foolish and the unconstitutional!

Their ruling means nothing.

Any ruling from the UN means less than nothing. It's almost our obligation as Americans to go against any UN legislation that is against us.

21 posted on 11/29/2010 1:59:58 PM PST by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

IMO the Judges decision has nothing to do with his/her/its
submission to Islam but EVERYTHING to the Judiciary refusing to be held accountable to our US Constitution and their legal
duty by any group of people.The Judge simply thinks He/she/it is now a god chosen by people too stupid to change the role of the Judge.


22 posted on 11/29/2010 2:02:54 PM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
But exactly what authority does this judge have to block certification of election results?

Exactly. The Secretary of State in OK needs to ignore the stay, certify the results and tell this judge, "Lady, I don't work for you."

23 posted on 11/29/2010 2:18:37 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (NASA? Muslims? Muslims will want to go to the moon only when Israel sets up shop there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
But exactly what authority does this judge have to block certification of election results?

The judge has authority to find a State law violates constitutional rights. That is the basis offered here by those behind the lawsuit. If Oklahoma passed a law that said that Islam is not permitted to be practiced in the state, it would violate the First Amendment.The judge could overturn it.

That being said, state judges in Oklahoma are required to apply the law of the state as determined by the legislature. It does not interfere with the complainant's religious freedom to require state judge's to apply only Oklahoma State law. To me it is similar to prosecuting parents who withhold medical treatment to their kids on religious grounds. The state does not allow their unique religious beliefs to excuse child neglect. Here the referendum was really unnecesary because Sharia was not being applied in Oklahoma. But, it did serve the purpose of preventing some goofy judge from applying it in the future.

In any event, the issuance of a temporary injunction is only to prevent enforcement of the law until a final determination is made on the merits. However, in order to issue such a preliminary injunction the court must have decided that the complainant's case has a likelihood of success on the merits. That is a bad sign for the ultimate outcome at this level.Judge Miles-Lagrange is a liberal who will rule with the complainant in this case regardless of how specious his argument is. The Tenth Circuit will likely reverse IMHO.

24 posted on 11/29/2010 2:36:00 PM PST by lawdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PATRIOT1876

If this continues unabated we are going to have another civil war. It is time for one.
1776
1861
2011
Someone has to die, so others may live (in freedom).
Let’s Roll!!1


25 posted on 11/29/2010 3:22:59 PM PST by Doulos1 (Bitter Clinger Forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Whenifhow; houeto; null and void; Squantos; xrmusn; bronxville; Screaming_Gerbil; ...
Knowing Oklahomans the way I do, I can tell you that like us Texans, there's only so much of this commie-Muslim-lawyer crap they're going to take before going Comanche.

"Civil War II" ping.

Ping list monitoring government and leftist agitation and instigation of violence.

FReepmail me if you want on or off The Comedian's "Civil War II" ping list...


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

26 posted on 11/29/2010 3:28:25 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President William J. Clinton on September 22, 1994, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma vacated by Lee Roy West. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 7, 1994, and received her commission on November 28, 1994. She began her service as chief judge in 2008. Photobucket
27 posted on 11/29/2010 3:40:25 PM PST by mojitojoe (In it’s 1600 years of existence, Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

I don’t think this judge will last long. But it will get to the supremes.


28 posted on 11/29/2010 3:42:17 PM PST by BenKenobi (Don’t worry about being effective. Just concentrate on being faithful to the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

I agree. My Texan ancestors & relatives were historically from OK.


29 posted on 11/29/2010 4:00:51 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Doulos1

Late reply.I think we’ll see nullification more and more,once it gets started.

I’m sure it’s in the minds of some.


30 posted on 11/29/2010 4:40:00 PM PST by silentreignofheroes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This won’t go far. If sharia were allowed to be considered, every other type of religious law will have to be considered, including Christianity under the Equal Protection clause. The ACLU won’t stand for that.


31 posted on 11/29/2010 4:50:14 PM PST by Free Vulcan (The battle isn't over. Hold their feet to the fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silentreignofheroes

We have to, it has become death by a thousand federal paper cuts.


32 posted on 11/29/2010 5:33:48 PM PST by Doulos1 (Bitter Clinger Forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Doulos1

Basically got throwed off jury duty because of jury nullification.The gov. only wants folks that do not think.

Take Care and have a Merry Christmas.


33 posted on 11/29/2010 5:52:10 PM PST by silentreignofheroes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: silentreignofheroes

God bless you, and you too have a Merry Christmas.


34 posted on 11/29/2010 5:57:41 PM PST by Doulos1 (Bitter Clinger Forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PATRIOT1876

“in any of her accounts.... “

...in any of her or her immediate relatives accounts....// perhaps I should add close acquaintances too.


35 posted on 11/29/2010 7:22:08 PM PST by B4Ranch (I have never met one, not one Veteran who enlisted to fight for Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

Double the estimate you have in mind. Society has changed, tremendously, my friend.


36 posted on 11/29/2010 7:28:08 PM PST by B4Ranch (I have never met one, not one Veteran who enlisted to fight for Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Only double, you’re more optimistic than I... I would have said quadruple.


37 posted on 11/29/2010 7:44:00 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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