Skip to comments.Voters ban judges from using international law [& Sharia, Muslims prepare lawsuit, OKlahoma]
Posted on 11/03/2010 6:00:28 AM PDT by FourPeas
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."
Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.
CAIR has a track record of being pro-terrorist.
They are a corrupt organization and it should be said every time they stick their noses into this nation’s business.
This is great news.
And so it begins. Get the hell out of OUR country if you can’t follow OUR laws!!!!
If Muslims don’t like it, they are free to leave OUR country in pursuit of a better life OUTSIDE the borders of the United States of America. End of story.
It’s impossible to get along with this crowd. They don’t want to live peaceable next to us, they want to kick us out.
CAIR will sue, and with the help of a demorat appointed judge, win and this will be declared unconstitutional.
BRING IT ON !!!!
They [the left] don’t REALLY mean “separation of Church and State”, they really mean “destruction of Christian influence in Western society”.
“Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam”
Achmed, you have not seen an attack on Islam yet. When you do, you will don a burqua & hide with your hags-in-bags.
And the judge will probably use Sharia and international law to come to his decision.
I realize that, but we might as well throw their own words in their faces when we get the chance.
Sounds about par for the course.
There’s a legal problem. While you can ban State judges from considering international law in their decisions, you have to also ban “religious” law, not just Sharia law, from their decisions.
The real issue is not what State judges do, but what religious people do “on their own dime”, as it were. For a long time, for example, Jews have been allowed to have their own religious courts, to settle disputes between Jews in an *consensual* manner. It is almost never an issue to the rest of the public, and decisions are entirely voluntary.
But when Muslims demand the same right, to have *consensual* courts with Sharia Law, just for them, they are invariably *not* consensual, but coercive, and even threatening. To not use such a court once it is established, or to reject its decision means at a minimum being ostracized by their community, more likely to be menaced with, or physically attacked, or even killed.
Unfortunately, our legal system is as of yet incapable of distinguishing the difference between religious court systems. In short, there is no way Sharia Law courts can be tolerated in the US, where coercion would *not* be a factor. Even if they had to conduct their courts under the watchful eyes of non-Muslims, they would still engage in coercion outside of the court.
Undoubtedly the Muslims will propose an “incremental” Sharia court, which just covers petty disputes, but even this must be refused, as the only persons who could use such a court are adult males, as they are the only “fully enfranchised” Muslims. Women and children are denied full rights, which by itself is enough to warrant exclusion.
And non-Muslims have *no* rights before such a court.
Likewise, while there is a pretense that Sharia Law is standardized and codified, it is not. Not only are there multiple versions, whose particulars can be interchanged, but as a rule it is *subjective* law, open to significant and whimsical interpretation by its “judge” or “judges”. It does not even contain the *concept* of objectivity.
Therefore, properly speaking, a Sharia Law court is little different than the kangaroo court offered by a lynch mob, so that they can feel sanctimonious about their oppression.
Awesome! Thank you Oklahoma for leading the way!
CAIR may sue - that is their right. But in Oklahoma, trial judges are elected. They are not appointed by the Governor (soon to be an R) unless there is a mid-term vacancy, and without going through a panel of the Judicial Nominating Commission. The Governor must appoint one of the names submitted by the Commission. BTW, the Commission will have a majority of lay people beginnning January 1.
If CAIR files in federal court, I like our chances with the judges in the Western District of Oklahoma, Federal District Court. After the Judge finishes laughing, they would summarily dismiss the suit.
Our Judges follow the Constitution and the law. I know its old fashioned, but it works. Ask me sometime and I will tell you about the “By God Law.” It is rarely invoked, but is one of the most powerful laws that govern judges in Oklahoma.
Have a little confidence in judges in the state in which every county voted against Obama in 2008. Oh, Oklahoma is the only state that did that.
Thanks for the thanks. I will forward your kind words to Colonel Duncan. I know that this issue was important to him. He did it because it was the right thing to do at the right time.
The new governors and state legislatures will not only fight Obama’s healthcare and other infringements on the 10th, but here is where we start making moves on PC garbage all over the country. And it’s well past time.
I have happily lived in Oklahoma since 1988 when the AF transferred me here. Given the chance to leave for an overseas assignment followed by a plum choice on return I declined and chose to stay here. There’s a reason why Oklahoma is considered to be the most conservative state in the Union. That, plus it has a really neat state song!
Something tells me any suggestion to use Noachide Halakhah in deciding cases would cause the libs to raise holy h***.