|
Vicki Miles-Lagrange
|
|
|
|
http://www.jtbf.org/index.php?src=directory&view=biographies&srctype=detail&refno=118
She has never worked in the private sector. All gubbermint jobs for this shariah compliant judge
Posted on 11/30/2010 9:18:00 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which bans state courts from considering Islamic, or Shariah, law when deciding cases, hit a major roadblock today, when a federal judge granted a permanent injunction against the measure.
Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma blocked the state from certifying the amendment – approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters through a ballot initiative known as State Question 755 – until an final determination is made on a lawsuit brought against it by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Miles-LaGrange not only granted the injunction on grounds the lawsuit was likely to succeed, but also delivered harsh criticism of the amendment itself.
"Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals," Miles-LaGrange writes in her decision. "Having carefully reviewed the briefs on this issue … the Court finds that [plaintiff Muneer Awad] has shown that he will suffer an injury in fact, specifically, an invasion of his First Amendment rights."
In her decision, the judge said CAIR demonstrated the Shariah ban could be viewed as an "official condemnation" of Islam, resulting in "a stigma" attached to Muslims within the political community. She also argued that since many Islamic last wills and testaments require consideration of Shariah law, under the approved amendment courts would not be able to probate Islamic wills.
Therefore, she ruled, CAIR "has made a strong showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim asserting a violation of the Free Exercise Clause."
CAIR celebrated the ruling as a victory:
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Well screw it. I’m making up my own rules and living by them from now on. Clearly, the constitution is unconstitutional.
If the voters prohibited the application of Canon law, do you think a random Catholic gets this injunction?
This is a curious case because the voters sought to define the law in their state. They should have every right to do that. They have every right to say in our courts our law will apply. By that I mean the law of their state.
A Clinton appointee, of course.
So what does this mean? It goes to the supreme court? It’s dead in the water?
Another Clinton appointed judge, surprise surprise. The next president needs to fire every damn one of these rat bastards. I shudder to think what kind of injustice and tyrrany will result at Obama’s assignees throughout the country....
This judge is a blithering idiot. The muslims are set on replacing ALL our institutions with theirs — including the courts — including this moron of a judge. If she objects, at some point they will have enough power to simply haul her out behind the courthouse and behead her. What part of the muslim goal doesn’t she understand.
Her rant against the amendment completely ignores the fact that never before has a group that has failed to assimilate announced that it seeks to overthrow the established order in this nation. If they are not stopped now, it will soon be too late.
Sounds to me as though she’s seeking to curry favor with the muslim lover in the White House. I hear the appelate court payscale is better than her current position.
Progressives need to decide whether they really believe there’s an individual right to impose religious law on others, or whether that is in fact forbidden by the First Amendment (as one might have expected them to assert.) They can’t have it both ways....
Or what? Or it will tear the country apart? Or it will destroy the laws and the nation? Or it will wreck the economy and subject us to invasion?
That's what they want.
You see that it will ultimately mean their own destruction, too.
They see the comforting pat of their master's hand on their heads.
Or they will expose themselves as frauds to the the useful idiots who sincerely believe that Progressives are the good guys who are protecting them from totalitarian theocracy. If they lose those useful idiots, they will lose many more elections and lose even more power than they just did a month ago.
“She also argued that since many Islamic last wills and testaments require consideration of Shariah law, under the approved amendment courts would not be able to probate Islamic wills.”
This bitch is on crack...according to her...Sharia law is ALREADY being consirdered in LEGAL proceedings in the United States...
This needs to be stomped into the ground ASAP.
National suicide must seem ennobling to many of these judges.
Sharia, OK, birth certificate, no way.
The brakes are off the cart, it seems.
...and there are people that claim that there is never justification for assassination.
Prohibiting that would be a violation of the right to contract. But progressives would normally approve, based on their invalid interpretation of the Establishment Clause as requiring separation of church and State (which doesn't in fact mean what they think it does, but that's another issue.)
The Oklahoma Constitutional amendment should have made clear it only was referring to the application of foreign or religious law in cases where both parties had not previously agreed in writing to having a particular law applied in a particular situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange
My guess is Ms. LaGrange thinks anti-Sharia equates to anti-black since some American Blacks and Black Africans are Muslims.
Ms. LaGrange is not only out of her mind, but legislating from the bench,].
The First Amendment states there shall be no establishment of religion. Sharia Law does exactly that. In effect, the Oklahoma Law was re-inforcing the Constitution. Further, recent Federal and local court decisions have established that nearly ANY publicly affiliated religious connections are unconstitutional. I guess in Ms. LaGrange’s demented racist mind that only applies to Christian sects.
Ms. LaGrange’s decision needs to be appealed directly to SCOTUS
Lunatics are in control of the asylum!
A private, non-governmental religious court system would violate the Constitution in the U.S. even if it acted solely in civil matters if it’s decisions were in any way validated by the State.
America is NOT, thank God, Britain.
“shariah courts in the UK deal with family disputes, and not necessarily the kinds of things that would get one stoned to death or amputated.”
Hmmm. Sort of like, getting half raped?
One demented lunatic on a Federal Bench (READ her distorted logic in rendering a decision on this subject) can’t be permitted to set a precedence for the nation.
This cries out for an appeal to the SCOTUS and a mental exam for Ms. LaGrange.
|
Vicki Miles-Lagrange
|
|
|
|
http://www.jtbf.org/index.php?src=directory&view=biographies&srctype=detail&refno=118
She has never worked in the private sector. All gubbermint jobs for this shariah compliant judge
You mean the family dispute where the father gets to sell his daughter in marriage to another man, or the family dispute where the man says "I divorce you" three times and he's divorced, or the family dispute where a man wants to have a second wife?
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.