Oklahoma’s ban on Sharia law thrown out by de feral judge
_______________________________________________
That looks better..
the spellcheck wasnt working earlier...
“While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights,” the judge wrote.
Filthy, commie, stupid, parasitic, useless, moronic, idiotic, asinine, nasty, ignorant, bought and paid for, disgraceful, scummy, whoring, putrid, sleazy, (pick 3) SLUNT.
History teaches “islam to the sword and the sword to islam” or kiss your and your progeny’s a$$ ‘bon voyage’ back to the sixth century and slavery. They’re serious-you need to get angry, it is almost too late. They only understand Death; make it theirs and not yours.
I don't understand. Do an individual's rights include the right to be tried by his own private, personal set of laws?
Do we no longer acknowledge objective truth, that something can be true or false regardless of how we feel about it?
Whatever. This ******** ends when we stand up against the Muslims and the leftists IN PERSON. The law doesn’t exist in this country anyway.
Assuming this idiot judge is a liberal she would be one of the first ones against the wall if the muzzies ever took over.
Beliefs are personal and one’s own business. Actions based on one’s beliefs are required to be within the limits established by the Constitution.
For example, one may believe in cannibalism, but as long as no act is taken there can be no violation of the Constitution.
Belief and acts are different.
All I needed to see was her hyphenated name and I knew she hadn’t a brain, just a deep hatred for men and the country.
I can’t tell if our elected officials are trying to suck up to Muslims or just taking the “it isn’t reality if I don’t acknowledge it” to an extreme and insane level.
Either way, freedom’s days are numbered and the number is fast approaching zero.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
She is confusing the ban on Sharia law as being a violation of the Establishment Clause with what it really is:
A ban on a foreign law [Sharia] from circumventing the supreme law of the land [US Constitution] and the laws enacted in support thereof ...
She'll be reversed.
Here are a few examples of Sharia Law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad’s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on.
“Miles-LaGrange found “that any harm that would result from permanently enjoining the certification of the election results is further minimized in light of the undisputed fact that the amendment at issue was to be a preventative measure and that the concern that it seeks to address has yet to occur.”
Just think about that for a moment. How many laws are their on the books that are to prevent something from occurring.
Why do they have gun laws. Because they think it will prevent a crime from concurring. Note that the crime has not yet occurred. You could come up with a very long list. Half of today’s laws would have to thrown out as unconstitutional based on this reasoning.
But as we know this rule only applies when it is needed for a certain political side.
Cops in America are taught to ever surrender to the tax payer and to be ready to surrender to muslims before they ever think surrendering to us.
In a way the law was bad to begin with, it should have not mentioned Sharia or Islam but instead mentioned the Sharia system BY DESCRIPTION and described things that were endemic to Sharia without actually mentioning it. That way when CAIR started to bitch about we could say “What the hell are complaining about this law is against any “Political system that is ingrained in religion” “ Instead they opened it up to be cancelled out by an affirmative action POS judge.
“Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President Bill 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. Judge Miles-LaGrange’s preliminary ruling [4] enjoining amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit the state’s courts from either “considering or using” international law or Islamic Sharia law has attracted considerable attention and has prompted one Oklahoma state legislator to urge Congress to impeach her.[5]’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange
Liberty amendments
Sharia is Islam’s societal framework and legal code. Particularly as construed by Islamic supremacists, whose ideology dominates the Middle East, sharia is authoritarian, anti-liberty, anti-equality, and intolerant of minority rights. Indeed, in 1990, Islamic supremacists felt the need to issue their own “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” precisely because they cannot abide the aspirations laid out in the purportedly “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” promulgated by the United Nations in 1948. Human rights, for the Islamist, must bow to the repressive injunctions of sharia.
Elections do not equal democracy. To the contrary, democracy is a culture of governance committed to the protection of minority rights and equality of opportunity. Sharia abides neither of those principles. Turkey’s Islamic-supremacist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that ought to be a lot more notorious: “Democracy is just the train we board to reach our destination.” Islamists step off the train at sharia station, which is a civilization’s distance away from liberty and equality. In a sharia society, “democracy” — taken to mean mere voting — is not a culture. It is just another means of imposing totalitarian sharia. To be sure, it is a means less brutal than violent jihad, but a means to the same sorry end.
The Muslim Middle East is part of a different civilization and does not share our core beliefs. Adherent to supremacist Islam, it rejects equality under the law (the rights of non-Muslims are inferior to those of Muslims, and those of women to those of men). In Muslim countries, religious minorities are systematically oppressed and persecuted. The sovereign is deemed to be Allah, acting through the Muslim ruler or caliph. There are no “constituents” to “represent”; the people are subjects who owe the caliph obedience and whose only legitimate expectation of the caliph is his fidelity to sharia.
There is an implied "but" between the first clause of the sentence, above, and the second clause.
And, as Peter McWilliams put it in his bestseller from about two decades ago, Do It! Let's Get Off Our Buts: "'But' is the word we use to mean, 'Ignore everything I have said up to this point. Here comes the real scoop.'"
In this case, "the real scoop" may be found in the second clause to the sentence outlining the judge's rationalization...uh, reasoning...
There is an implied "but" between the first clause of the sentence, above, and the second clause.
And, as Peter McWilliams put it in his bestseller from about two decades ago, Do It! Let's Get Off Our Buts: "'But' is the word we use to mean, 'Ignore everything I have said up to this point. Here comes the real scoop.'"
In this case, "the real scoop" may be found in the second clause to the sentence outlining the judge's rationalization...uh, reasoning...