Posted on 03/22/2011 11:28:33 AM PDT by Svartalfiar
TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.
But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.
"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
The parties freely entered into a contract specifying Sharia law for arbitration of disagreements, which they had every right to do.
Evidently one of the parties changed their minds, which they are not free to do.
LESSON: Don't sign a contract that you do not intend to honor.
Grrrrr.
Exactly. The judge only is referring to Sharia law to the extent that the parties themselves validly contracted (under standard contract principles) to do. It’s not meaningfully different than the judge’s referring to The Rules Of Bridge to resolve a lawsuit over who won a bridge-tournament prize.
That judge should be impeached for allowing such an enemy ideology to make inroads into our legal system.
Maybe a Nazi sicko could set up a minature Dachau and some other sicko (sado masochist type) would offer to be the concentration camp inmate? The possibilities for such irrationality are endless.
Great analogy. I wish I had thought of it.
The judge should be fired.
just stone both of them to death. If they signed the agreement under sharia law thats where it usually tends to end up anyway.
Did the judge actually order Sharia law to be implemented? I presume this would be unconstitutional and if so, I would also think impeachment might be in order.
The judge ruled on a contract signed between two consenting parties. The contract they signed specified that disputes would be resolved according to Sharia Law.
It really has nothing to do with Islam.
It's a simple case of enforcement of a contract.
>>> Don't sign a contract that you do not wish to be bound by.
Ping to comments 2 & 4 :)
I like my idea better, just throw it out of court and let them figure it out themselves, since sharia was such a good idea to begin with.
WTF!!
Inhumane is not allowed under our Constitution....under Natural Law Theory and inalienable rights of persons, rights can not be contracted away. The judge is ignoring the fundamental principles of the meaning and origin of our rights by the Constitution of the US.
But under the Constitution, inhumanity to people is not allowed, no matter if agreed to by victim.
Also, contracts are invalid if they deny inalienable right of person....no one, not even a person is allowed to remove their inalienable rights—to life, etc. Those rights are issued by God and no one is allowed to remove them....even by contract....That is why the US has been so unique. There was Objective Truth based on Natural Law Theory and God’s Law.
What of those things you list is this contract violating?
Is it a contract about stoning someone?
It actually is not a very interesting case. It should be decided by Sharia law, and differences in the Presbyterian Church should be decided by Presbyterian law.
This law suit should never have been brought by the plaintiffs.
“Stoning, amputaton, beating of one’s wife and other such garbage....”
.
Always remember that all cultures are of equal value. It is this firm conviction that makes our diversity in our multicultural society such a great success.
Really? Under what clause?
What happens when this “contract” of using Sharia law results in someone carrying out an illegal punishment such as amputation or stoning? sharia law involves specific punishments. So this notion of two parties just honoring a contract falls apart when they start lobbing stones.
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.