Hillsborough judge in Islamic law case no liberal

St. Petersburg Times (FL) ^ | 3/31/11 | William R. Levesque,

[ruralvoter]

They've called for his removal. They've said he is an idiot, a judicial activist, a traitor, a liberal and, yes, perhaps even a Democrat.

In the explosion of criticism against Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard A. Nielsen after he invoked Islamic law in a case involving a Tampa mosque, the caricature of the judge is absurdly incorrect, friends say.

(SNIP) Critics might be surprised by a few facts gleaned from friends, colleagues and public records.

Nielsen is a registered Republican and a conservative.

[Mmogamer]

Doesn’t mean he can’t screw up or be an idiot.

[Tribune7]

It sounds like a bunch of Muslims were having an inter-Muslim dispute and asked the judge to resolve it. It probably isn't as bad as some are making it out to be i.e. putting Islamic law ahead of civil law or the Constitution.

It sounds like he's just trying to make the club follow its bylaws.

[sport]

Bullshit on him being a Conservative.His and islam's supporters can defend him and what he did as no big deal until the cows come home. But CAIR knows the full implecitation of what he did. He allowed islam to get its camel's nose under the legal tent of American jurisprudence. Just what they were after.

If the St. Peterburg Times defend him, then you can bet your ass that he is no Conservative.

[mewykwistmas]

He should’ve said “Both parties agree to solve the dispute in arbitration” not sign a document that mentions Celestial Muslim law or whatever it said

[Optimist]

He ruled correctly.
The fact that the word Sharia was used has everyone in a tizzy.
All he did was say that the parties have to abide by the contract they signed (which is always the standard unless it goes against local or US law).
If they had said they were going to settle disputes by dungeons and dragons rules, so be it.
On the other hand, if they had specified disputes would be settled by dueling with pistols or swords or the beheading of the losing party, he would naturally deny this as a legal way to settle the dispute.

[GladesGuru]

Problem! ! !

“All he did was say that the parties have to abide by the contract they signed (which is always the standard unless it goes against local or US law).”

Sharia is, in and of itself, a violation of the Constitution in that Islam insists that Sharia law must replace the Constitution.

The reason Moslims call us the Great Satan is that our Constitution and Islam are antithetical and irreconcilable.

Islam is, by its theology, history, ad nauseam, treason because it demands that all submit to Allah and live under Sharia law. It is a violation of the anti-establishment clause by it theology & history

[Mercat]

As I understand it, this is a contract case. The parties agreed to do arbitration and to use sharia law. Once having done that, absent total violation of all things in the civil law, the decision of the arbitrator is going to prevail. I don’t see the problem with it.

[gusty]

Anytime this judge is mentioned all the dummies on our side crawl out of the woodwork. Before anyone should bash the judge, they should try to learn a little about the law. Maybe read a book, or take a business law class.

[Mr. Jazzy]

St. Petersburg Times reporter on this story, which pretty much means the whole thing is crap.

This judge may have at one time been very conservative in action and deed, but in this case the judge is going beyond state laws and considerations just for the cause of satisfying a religious group.