The judge says that “upholding an individual’s constitutional rights” is more important than the will of the masses. I would agree if indeed the will of the masses violated the constitutional rights of an individual. However, I’m not sure how it’s an “individual’s constitutional right” to have a US court consider sharia or international law when adjudicating a case. Exactly. It's not. The only cases that should matter in a U.S. court decision are previous U.S. court decisions, not foreign or sharia. I wonder if her ruling would have been the same if, instead of sharia, it was some court set up by a group of Christians.
We should just let every person pick the set of laws they want to be used when in court. No doubt... Levitical law is what we should go by. That gives us the right to "eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth".
I live in Oklahoma, this judge has always been an idiot.