Posted on 02/27/2011 2:46:33 PM PST by John Semmens
Legislation aimed at barring Islamic sharia law from being used to decide cases in state courts has been introduced in 14 states, thus far this year. The American Bar Association’s Executive Council has created a “task force” to oppose this legislation by producing “talking points that can be used to dissuade legislators from taking such action.”
“There are two key issues here,” said Council spokesman Arthur Swindel. “First, there is the cultural prerogative of persons to choose which laws they wish to be subject to. Islam has a long and storied history and a legal structure that has been in place for centuries—pre-dating, I’d like to point out, the constitutions and laws of every state now in existence. Therefore, whether a state’s laws or sharia laws should take precedence is, we believe, a matter for adjudication.”
“Second, it is the primary responsibility of the Bar Association to protect the interests of its members,” Swindel continued. “The more competing legal standards in play, the more ambiguity there is in what the law is, the more opportunities there will be for the employment of our members. Fees will be earned on both sides of every case. Even attorneys who oppose using sharia law will benefit from the necessity to contest its application in any given case. So, from an economic standpoint this means a bigger pie for every member of our profession.”
This venture into preemptive lobbying against legislative action supplements the profession’s more traditional approach of suing to overturn already enacted laws. Last November, an Oklahoma court struck down a ban on sharia law being used in its state courts that was put into place by voters.
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/president-and-treasury-secretary-downplay-mid-east-strife-hail-invention/
(Excerpt) Read more at azconserv1.wordpress.com ...
Almost choked on my steak when I saw: “First, there is the cultural prerogative of persons to choose which laws they wish to be subject to.” Then I noticed the story’s source.
Who knew that we could pick and choose the laws that applied to us?
You beat me to it. I was going to post almost the exact same thing.
If this group is really advocating “the cultural prerogative of persons to choose which laws they wish to be subject to”, then they are advocating treason.
“First, there is the cultural prerogative of persons to choose which laws they wish to be subject to. Islam has a long and storied history and a legal structure that has been in place for centuries—pre-dating, I’d like to point out, the constitutions and laws of every state now in existence....” Not in the United States. They have a choice to be here or not be here. This isn’t like American Indians who insist they have the religious freedom to eat peyote. They were here first, doing whatever it was that they were doing first. Even then there are many things they were doing that they are no longer allowed to do according to the laws of the land. If Muslims can’t conform to our laws at the expense of sharia law, which is barbaric, they should leave. There should be extra years added to sentences given to Muslims who use Sharia as a defense for breaking our laws.
The new subversive law group is the National Lawyers Guild. Look it up.
The feminazi’s can’t be jazzed about this.
Or is Islam the only religion exempt from the mythical doctrine of "separation of church and state?"
Now that's a really interesting point. I wonder how many atrocities against women have to occur in the US before NOW, etc finally get wise. Or are they so rigidly PC that they'll just surrender and accept Sharia?
Sure! Oh, wait a minute. Catholics are not an oppressed minority. So the answer is no.
I would only add to your thoughts, chaos. This would be total chaos.
Yeah, but only in their own backward, two class (very rich/very poor) countries. THIS IS AMERICA YOU WORTHLESS AMBULANCE CHASING LEACHES.
It’s the lawyers union advocating legal ambiguity so they
can line their pockets in court debating the
various flavors of law. More laws to keep them
employed. More lawyer’s union lobbying for
job protection.
Note that is from a “Semi News/ Semi Satire” source ...
Okay, was there every an attorney so aptly named.
Oh, really. Well, then we can get rid of Roe vs. Wade, gay marriage, no prayer in school, and maybe revisit women's suffrage while we are at it.
What an idiot.
I'm the idiot.
I'm kewl wiff it, just as long as they ALL agree to wear these every day -
There is a very defined Jewish civil law as well. Should we establish a Bet Din (religious court) in America as there is in Israel?
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.