In order to issue a TRO the judge must find that it’s more likely than not the movant will prevail on the merits of the case. I’d love to see how the Judge came to that legal conclusion.
Presumably by the incorporation doctrine, applied to Amendment I, first clause.
Look, banning Islam is going to require a Federal constitutional amendment. That is true without question.
Work on it, by all means, but don't waste time on state or Federal legislation, because it's not going to work.
The amendment is pre-emptive anyway. We have plenty of time before it is actually needed.
Sharia law is completely incompatible with the constitution anyway. If this amendment is struck down, it will be because it is unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see what twisted logic is used to support that position.
Doesn't the moving party also have to prove it will suffer "irreparable harm" without the TRO?
“In order to issue a TRO the judge must find that it’s more likely than not the movant will prevail on the merits of the case. I’d love to see how the Judge came to that legal conclusion.”
I am curious what pressing case created the emergency necessary to have a TRO hearing.
Was there an accused murderer whose defense required claiming Sharia made him do it? Maybe a bomber?
For real! We’ve got a lot of work to take our country back!
The order was sought in a lawsuit by Oklahoma Muslim Muneer Awad. Awad is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma and said during the hearing that the law stigmatizes his religion.
I’ll bet he issued this TRO on the basis that the amendment specifies Sharia which in turn means islam. Now I believe if the amendment was worded to say that no “religious” law could be used in the courts the judge would have considered it valid. However to single out a specific religion (even though islam is a cult) would be discriminatory.