Posted on 11/24/2010 8:57:33 AM PST by neverdem
No pardon needed from me; since when did it become wrong to hate injustice?
Only a fool says that all hate is wrong.
THERE ARE AN ARMY OF LIKE-MINDED JUDGES AND LAWYERS OUT THRE, STANDING IN LINE FOR WORK LIKE THIS.
AND THERE IS NOT A SINGLE POS LEGAL-DEGREED INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL GO TO COURT AGAINST A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION!
I know what you mean; it extends even to the state level. I have an example I am quite fond of because it illustrates the point so well:
| New Mexico State Constitution Article II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
|---|
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. |
| NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty. |
| A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by: (1) a peace officer; (2) university security personnel; (3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program; (4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or (5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property. B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises. C. As used in this section: D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. |
Now either the Constitution means what it says when it says "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense" or it does not; if it does not then why should I assume that it means what it says in Atr IV, Sec. 1. [Judicial power vested.] "The judicial power of the state shall be vested in the senate when sitting as a court of impeachment, a supreme court, a court of appeals, district courts; probate courts, magistrate courts and such other courts inferior to the district courts as may be established by law from time to time in any district, county or municipality of the state"?
That is to say, "what right would a court have to try me?"
Furthermore, the statute prohibits firearms in "the buildings and grounds of a university" which must obviously include student housing; if firearms are prohibited from student housing, then isn't any Citizen who resides therein being denied the right of firearms "for security and defense"?
And yet when I pose these questions to those in authority I get strange replies like:
Aaaaargh!! Where do I go for an answer to the question of whether or not this law is valid!?
It is obvious that it is not, which is the whole point.
This BULLCRAP isn’t going to stand!!!
Figures.
The plaintiff's specific interests aside, the judge was correct to grant the injunction, and there's no need to invoke the Islam boogey-man to see why.
Here's an example of the author's ignorance:
To appreciate how strange the judge’s decision is, imagine if Oklahoma had passed a law saying that state courts could not substitute Roman Catholic canon law for state and federal law. No serious person would protest that this somehow inhibited Catholics in the practice of their religion.
In the real world, courts are often required to rule on matters involving religious organizations -- property cases, and the like. In making those rulings, judges often rely on the rules and regulations of the religious organization (including Canon Law), to determine which party has the better claim.
This law would prevent a judge from using organizational rules to make his decision. Instead, he'd have to rely on state and federal laws ... which probably wouldn't exist, because the First Amendment forbids it.
What Spakovsky derides as unimaginable, is in fact the way religion-related lawsuits are actually handled.
Mr. Spakovsky seems to be animated more by fear of Islam than anything else. That blinds him to the broader and damaging implications of the Oklahoma law.
Both! Sharia law goes against the Constitution and judges should know that. If they are not going to honor their oath then they should be gone.
Easy! Find a moslem who has converted to whatever... Take them to court (Sharia of course)... and request the stoning penalty. Or as an alternative, you could pretty much take half the population of the USA... request the same punishment for adultery. Then again, you could take all those unmarried mothers... request the same punishment... Always ask for a Demo judge of course.
Do it now and do it very often.
I didn't know that Sharia was a problem in Oklahoma.
Uh, Mr. Moslem, Sharia law is not a religion. Like the US Constitution, it is a set of rules.
Celebrate your religion all you want. Write all the wills you want. Just don't violate US Federal, State or Local laws. If that proves too difficult, perhaps you should leave.
Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President William J. Clinton on September 22, 1994, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma vacated by Lee Roy West. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 7, 1994, and received her commission on November 28, 1994. She began her service as chief judge in 2008.That's what I wanted to know, which Senate confirmed this nut. Thank you. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
#2
“I feel your pain.”
There was a black federal judge who was impeached and removed. I forget his name. He's now a Congressman.
His name is Alcee Hastings(sp?), IIRC, after a 30 minute synapse. It took longer than that before I got back to the thread.
“This will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which is dominated by Reagan and Bush appointees. I expect the ruling will be gutted.”
I hope so. I think Louisiana is the only other state that has a Shariah Law ban.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I do hope you didn't mean to suggest that over 70% of Oklahoma voters, those of us who overwhelmingly voted for this amendment, are actually "muzzie supporters".
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to re-phrase your statement.
Cheers!
Sharia Law is an establishment of religion, forbidden buy the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Just love those ideas!
As far as I can tell,
We just received another reason for keeping traditional marriage the law of the land.
Sheesssh!
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.