« | »

Judge Blocks OK’s Ban On Shariah Law

From a cheering New York Times:

Judge Blocks Oklahoma’s Ban on Using Shariah Law in Court

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
November 29, 2010

HOUSTON — An Oklahoma constitutional amendment aimed at stopping the use of Islamic law in its courts was dealt a serious blow on Monday when a federal judge temporarily blocked the state from putting it into effect. The amendment would forbid state judges from considering Islamic or international law in their decisions.

Right off the bat The New York Times intentionally misrepresents the amendment. Oklahomans sought to forbid judges from considering non-US laws, such as international law and Sharia.

This is an important distinction. But The Times chose to twist the ban to help support the judge’s tortured ‘logic.’

Known as State Question 755, the measure passed with 70 percent of the vote during the Republican landslide on Nov. 2, and has generated bitter debate.

Of course, "bitter debate" means that the Solons at the New York Times oppose it. After all, why should 70 percent of the voters get their way?

Muslims claim the state is discriminating against their religion, while supporters — many of them Christian conservatives — say the amendment is needed to thwart what they maintain is an effort by radical Muslims to impose Shariah law in the United States.

Is Islam a religion or a system of jurisprudence? If it is a religion, then this ban does not discriminate against it. If it is a legal code, then there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent its prohibition.

Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of Federal District Court in Oklahoma City, however, said in her decision to grant a preliminary injunction on Monday that the measure did not appear to pass constitutional muster.

It conveys a message, she said, that the state favors one religion or particular belief over others. The federal courts have long held that such a message violates the First Amendment’s clause prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, she said…

The judge barred the State Election Commission from certifying the results of the election until she makes a final ruling. She set no timetable for her decision.

Ms. Miles-LeGrange is a buffoon. Needless to say, she is a Bill Clinton appointee who has spent her entire life in government or ‘academia’ (African and women’s studies).

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had sued to block the amendment, arguing that the state was condemning his religious beliefs.

“We are definitely satisfied,” Mr. Awad said. “She is recognizing the majority vote cannot be used to take away my constitutional rights.”

Who has a "constitutional right" to be tried in US courts under a different set of laws? Where is that in the Constitution?

The detainees in Guantanamo would love to be tried under Sharia law, which encourages jihad and the killing of infidels.

But of course Mr. Awad is ultimately proving the rightness of the citizens of Oklahoma’s concerns. He and his terrorist enabling organization want to impose Sharia law on us and the rest of the world.

This is their goal in life, their jihad. And, alas, useful idiots like Ms. Miles-LeGrange are only too eager to help them.

At a hearing last week, Scott Boughton, an assistant attorney general for the state, said the measure was not intended to infringe on anyone’s religion; it was intended to keep Oklahoma judges from looking at the legal principles of other nations and cultures in applying state and federal law. When the judge asked whether that had ever happened in Oklahoma, however, Mr. Boughton acknowledged that he did not know of an instance in which Shariah law had been invoked by the courts.

Again, this isn’t just about Shariah law. But if Shariah law has never been brought up in court, how can CAIR argue that this ban will prohibit Muslim funerals and weddings? 

But this seems to have been a ‘logic free’ hearing.

Mr. Awad testified in court that the amendment was impossible to enforce, since the concept of Shariah law varies from person to person.

We would love to see Mr. Awad make this argument in Somalia or Iran. It would cost him his head.

He asserted the law might make it impossible for the courts to enforce his own last will and testament, since it requests he be buried according to Islamic principles…

Sadly, such laughable idiocy was apparently enough to convince Ms. Miles-LeGrange.

In her ruling on Monday, Judge Miles-LaGrange said she agreed with Mr. Awad’s contention that the definition of Shariah shifts depending on the country in which a Muslim lives and on each person’s religious beliefs.

She noted that one strong precept of Islamic law is to abide by the law of one’s land, and this explains why American Muslims do not generally practice bigamy, even though the Koran allows it.

Needless to say it is hilariously wrong to claim that Islamic law encourages its followers to abide by the law of one’s land. It stands Islam entirely on its head.

And speaking of bigamy, is Ms. Miles-LeGrange unaware that American law seems to favor Christian monogamy over Mormon polygamy? And that this has been upheld by our courts? (Just kidding. Of course she is pig ignorant of such details.)

The judge concluded that Shariah law “lacks a legal character” and “is not ‘law’ but is religious traditions that differ among Muslims.” As a result, she said, the amendment “conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff’s religion.”

If Shariah "is not law," then how would it even come up in court? If it is not a law, then it is unaffected by this amendment.

Supporters of the measure in the state Legislature had portrayed it as a protection against what they see as an international effort by radical Muslims to establish Islamic law throughout the world

What deluded people. Any sane person should see that Muslims have no desire whatsoever to establish Islamic law throughout the world.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, November 30th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Judge Blocks OK’s Ban On Shariah Law”

  1. GetBackJack

    Fine. Then we vote next time to eliminate Judge Vicki and outlaw Muslims altogether.

  2. proreason

    Good.

    Let them take all their cloths off and shout their manias from the rooftops.

    I like knowing who the enemy is.

  3. Petronius

    The Oklahoma constitutional amendment sought to prevent judges from using Sharia or other non-US law to decide cases. Unfortunately, as we see here, the amendment did not go far enough, since it failed to prevent judges from using Liberalism and stupidity to decide cases.

    This decision illustrates how Liberal ideology, how judges’ private theories about life, religion, situational ethics, or social justice, have supplanted both law and politics.

    The United States inherited the common law from England. The common law deals in particular cases, relying on historical case precedents involving similar sets of facts.

    One of the salient features of the common law is a bottom-up approach. General principles of law evolved slowly over centuries, based on the accumulated experience from thousands of actual cases. Changes in law were incremental and gradual, since they were based on slight variations of facts in different cases.

    One of great beauties of this approach is that the common law came to represent the collected reason of ages, and the infinite variety of human concerns. Another is that the law was predictable. And that it confined the courts to their proper sphere. Courts dealt with narrow issues of lawful or unlawful. Where the common law did not provide a remedy, courts of equity were established. But they applied the law as they found it, and not as they thought it “ought to be.” The rule of law was primary. Questions of ethics, of “good” or “bad,” were left to clerics and philosophers, or in the last resort to politics –– as matters for the legislative branch (and not for the courts) to decide.

    However, our jurisprudence has changed. In recent decades, Liberal judges have reversed the traditional legal process. We now have a top-down approach.

    Liberal judges apply their private theories of secular situational ethics or morality or social justice –– of “good” or “bad,” of what the law “ought to be” –– to establish broad principles in law. As a result, we sometimes experience abrupt, unpredictable, and sweeping changes in our law and in society. And the ideology and moral theories of the judges are substituted for the politics of the legislature or –– as here –– for the sovereign will of the people expressed by popular referendum.

    In this way, Liberalism has triumphed over law, politics, common sense, and the sovereignty of the American people. It is a strategy of subordinating the political and legal institutions of government, institutions that were centuries in the making, to a speculative, vague, and mutable theory of morality held by Liberal judges –– by people who have no authority, training, or other qualifications in systems of ethics and morality, and who in fact believe in neither ethics nor morality.

    As a result of this top-down approach, we find that our constitution, law, politics, and morality have all been corrupted, and American society is much the worse for it.

    Courts of law ought not to be laboratories for social experimentation. They ought to be places where the rule of law is enforced. By its very nature, law is the most concrete, ironclad, traditional, and conservative force in our society –– or at least law was in its original purpose, and remained so over the course of many centuries, before it became perverted by Liberalism. Liberalism, however, is an ideology, and it is an ideology about change, experimentation, and “social justice,” all of which are, by definition, incompatible with the rule of law.

    For all of these reasons, I see no objection to the wholesale removal of Liberal judges such as Vicki Miles-LaGrange from the bench wherever they may be found. Their appointments should be opposed to the utmost of our strength, and those Liberals who have been appointed should be removed from the bench at the first opportunity. Impeachment is not difficult; there is only the present lack of political will to do it.

    • proreason

      It should be much easier to impeach judges. In general, it should be much easier to recall all government officials.

      The traditional argument against it is that the power of recall ought to be carefully allocated and exercised.

      But since Nov 4, 2008, if it wasn’t already clear enough already, the danger of an 18th century recall process in the hands of 21st century radicals has become manifest.

      I am much more comfortable with the risk of abuse in a quick trigger impeachment process than I am of giving these criminals carte blanche to wreck their destruction for years or even lifetimes, with practically zero chance of recourse. If some good conservatives have to face the threat of recall in order to get rid of criminal judges before they destroy the country, so be it.

    • preparing4theworst

      “This is a court of law, not of justice.” Oliver Wendell Holmes must be rolling over in his grave about now.

    • Steve

      Wow, what a brilliant essay, Petronius. And all too true.

  4. Rusty Shackleford

    Yet another activist judge. Gee, I’m so surprised. To say nothing of a federal judge diddling in state law which is also a clear violation. A state can decide to have more restrictive laws but never less-so. I see this as the state deciding to be more restrictive since the fed gov is in no way interested in upholding any of the Constitution, unless it’s against conservative white men. In other words, they are actively dis-assembling our system of laws, intentionally, and caring not what the consequences are. I read about this some weeks ago and shook my head then in disgust as I do now.

    I had hoped that I would be gone from the Earth before the day came when a bunch of little smelly brown people with beards, (men and women) would overrun my beloved country and impose their cultist beliefs on the rest of us. I had to deal with that crap when I was a kid in North Africa and I couldn’t wait to get back home. I hate it now as much as I hated it then. Yes, hate. I’m a “hater” and I’m proud of it. And my hate is perfectly justified and I make no apology to anyone for it. They have their way and I have mine and I have never imposed my lifestyle on them in any way, shape or form. But now they come here and manipulate our way of doing things with the help of stupid, idiotic “judges” like this twit with a hyphenated last name, right there a clear sign of liberalism. Everything to her is about the emotion, the hurt feelings, the appearance if impropriety but by gerrymandering the law, she instead enables all those things for more tangible reasons instead of the wispy, nebulous assessment that it “might” cause some sort of appearance of prejudice. I submit that the more you try to actively eliminate such prejudice, you instead foster and encourage it. Rush has pointed this out repeatedly for two decades now but the socialist libs still think that forcing people to behave a certain way will “change their thinking” when in fact the opposite occurs.

    Nice going. You twit.

  5. preparing4theworst

    Perhaps judge vicki should go be a jurist in iran…..i am sure she would have a long and satisfying career

  6. preparing4theworst

    and if she REALLY likes hyphenated names I would be happy to submit a list of possibles…..say start with sell-out..

  7. Liberals Demise

    One cannot observe the Ten Commandments in any court house but according to Sharia Law one can beat his wife and marry a 10 year old.
    Looks like one religion means more than another. Which one is a nutbutter of a religion ….. you pick.
    Never mind that the ‘VOTERS’ have spoken but again a lone (nutbutter) judge has made its’ name into the news.
    Perhaps we will all remember Judge Dredd when sharia law stones her to death for being an “AMERICAN INFIDEL”.

    Hey, what comes around…….

  8. sheehanjihad

    Vicki Miles-LaGrange…….another enabler of Islam. Normally, I would rant on about what should happen to her and those like her, but this time it won’t be necessary. I know all too well the fate that Muslims have in store for their useful idiots…..and seeing what sharia law does to educated and self righteous elitists….especially females, she will face the inevitable harvest of intolerant misery that she herself sowed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse there Vicki? Perhaps you need to retire from the bench…..this country has enough self absorbed activists who display appalling ignorance every day….and now you. You should be ashamed of yourself. You will be once you learn how easily you were duped by those you admire….and how the rest of Americans view you with such disdain and loathing for your ignorance and lack of the very thing you were elected to do. Upholding the law. You didn’t. You madame, are not a Judge. You do, however, show unbelievable lack of such….

  9. canary

    Oh. The OK CAIR executive Awad must mean he wants to leave his money to terrorists like Hamas. Awad knows OK laws don’t interfere with his will or what the heck he does with his body.

    oooohhh. Soooo. The truth is that Awad wants to leave his money to the Hamas terrorists that CAIR OK is in trouble for. He knows they are being investigated for indictment for this, and the FBI has cut all ties with CAIR to include their D.C. office.

    “He asserted the law might make it impossible for the courts to enforce his own last will and testament, since it requests he be buried according to Islamic principles…”
    b..s…

    1. The state of OK has Green Graveyards not that a Islamic funeral or burial rituals need one.

    No coffin is required.
    No embalming with chemicals that will harm the earth in the grave yard.
    Bio-degradable clothing or naked with a cloth over the body.
    Only 1′ Ft. deep holes to cover with dirt.

    Further, OK muslims are allowed to buy and have their own grave yards, private racist schools & compounds, where they practice Iranian Tae Kwon Do, the only form of marshall arts of it’s kind in the world. Pre-K and up.

    2. The state of OK laws on wills are you can leave your money to whomever you want. Your dog, cat, horse, cow, ……
    No rules you have to leave your money to a spouse, in Asad’s case of course no woman, wife, daughter, period.

    • canary

      Asad forgot about Native American Indian Burials and the difficulty of Native AK Eskimos have when they have to put the bodies on above ground when the ground is frozen.

      And in AZ they can wrap the body put it on a brand new horse, lead it to a place on their homestead, kill the horse, and bury them both, on their homestead for their next journey.

      http://www.reznetnews.org/arti.....dely-23930


« Front Page | To Top
« | »