Awad said, for instance, that the measure could preclude the courts from enforcing or executing his will, since it includes references to Islamic law.
Posted on 11/08/2010 9:15:53 PM PST by garybob
A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued a temporary restraining order barring the state from adopting a constitutional amendment voters passed last week that forbids state courts from enforcing Islamic law, also known as Shariah.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Awad said, for instance, that the measure could preclude the courts from enforcing or executing his will, since it includes references to Islamic law.
Update from a recent post: Newly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets in England, Luftur Rahman, opines that Islam is incompatible with democracy ... QED
OK, I am pretty sure there are not that many Muslims in Oklahoma, so who are the idiots who make up that 30 percent.
If this man’s will include references to Islamic Law he should get a new lawyer and sue his old one for male practice.
Such references would be easy pickings for a sharp lawyer contesting the will to have it broken in the courts.
Ground temperature is the cure!
No surprise here. Federal judges make all the important laws these days. When will we stop enforcing them?
Send her a copy of Marbury v. Madison and order her to submit in writing what part of John Marshalls’ opinion does she not understand? Judges are administered an Oath or affirm to defend the US Constitution. The men who wrote and ratified that Supreme Law of the land intended the US Constitution
Not sharia Law,nor any foreign system to have precedence over our US Constitution. IF the Judge goes further she will have
overreached like that judge in Riverside on DADT repeal—and will have violated her solemn Oath -and ought not be retained-but IMPEACHED.
Once upon a time in America I thought it unreasonable for a judge to redefine “marriage” but look at the mess created when
Mass. did just that. The Constitutional amendment is the last resort to reign in activist Judges short of open rebellion.
IMO we need to reassert the founding idea that the Judiciary is by design intended to be the weakest branch -wholly dependent upon the Executive and Legislative as the Constitutional check on a despotic branch.I would consider Impeachment.
because Islam is not compatible with our system of government a democratic republic of laws applied equally to all. And
because Islam and the Christians and Jews have been at war since their mad prophet crawled form his cave. And because since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in th elate decade of the 1970’s there has been an ever increasing expansion of
Islam -have we forgotten 9-11-01—or the Ft.Hood Jihad by
one trusted by the US Army as an Officer? Nearly forty incidents recorded in partial list of Islamic terror world wide in th elast two months on website www.religionofpeace.com
As I understand this law and the use thereof, it would be limited to state courts only. Therefore, the judge has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to interfere. OK should send a local sheriff and arrest her for obstruction of justice.
No right to interfere, assuming that we still have voting rights and the states are not agents of the federal government. Given that judges have routinely overturned the will of the voters, the ballot box is as endeangered as a RINO at CPAC.
BTW, where is ACLU and their “separation of church and state”? Crickets.
What is a judge going to do? Tell her to piss off.
I know Muslims don’t want to assimilate with the west. They come to divide and conquer. You didn’nt answer my question.
In order for sharia law to be put up to a vote, a legislator had to sponsor it. Then voted in committee. You just don’t put crap like this on a ballot.
Crap like this on a ballot—Hmmm I heard the OK Law read on
Bill Bennetts Morning in America. — I believe it was a credible reading.which part of it do think was crap? It reflects what men like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Story James Wilson and others have said about Constitutional
Interpretation.It is not in conflict with the rule of law as far as I can see.The Amendment merely stated what ought be obvious to all judges sworn to defend the US Constitution,
and all laws made pursuant to it.
Never mind the judge’s ruling. How did this issue (crap) get on a voting ballot in the first place?
Most probably by some lawyer acting on behalf of his clients-
writing a proposed ballot initiative under existing State Law
That is how such Ballot initiatives are usually accomplished here in Colorado.The Judiciary has been allowed to pass judgement often without regard to the US Constitution they swear to defend. And Liberals/ progressives of every stripe
love to play games with the written law applying the metaphysical refinements that Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Story wrote were not necessary and have no place in interpreting/ applying our law.I find it necessary and not crap at all.
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.