Posted on 11/24/2010 8:57:33 AM PST by neverdem
Sharia Law: Coming Soon to a Courtroom Near You
An Oklahoma judge rules against the public interest.
If you thought only U.S. laws ruled the land, you thought wrong — at least according to a crazy decision recently handed down by a federal judge in Oklahoma.
On November 2, Sooner State voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that directs courts to “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and forbids “courts from considering or using international law” or “Sharia law.” Muneer Awad responded by filing suit, and Judge Micki Miles-LaGrange, a Clinton appointee, promptly issued a temporary restraining order, putting the people’s voice on hold.
The plaintiff asserted that his First Amendment rights would be violated if Oklahoma’s constitution was amended to implement this ban against consideration of Sharia law. The amendment, he claimed, would constitute official “disapproval” of his religion. Moreover, it would invalidate his last will and testament, which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed.
Judge Miles-LaGrange bought the argument that banning foreign law would inhibit the practice of religion — in this case, Islam — and lead to excessive government entanglement with religion. She confused the practice of religion — which is not banned under the referendum — with the imposition of a foreign body of law derived from Islam.
In coming to these erroneous conclusions, the judge misunderstands the purpose of the First Amendment, as expressed by the Founders. The Establishment Clause was solely intended to prevent a national church from being funded with tax dollars, and to prevent the government from favoring any particular religious sect.
James Madison, the chief proponent behind the enactment of our Bill of Rights, said the Establishment Clause meant that “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” Judge Miles-LaGrange does not explain how Oklahoma’s amendment would “inhibit” a Muslim from worshiping in his own way as dictated by his own conscience. Nor does she explain how it would prohibit a Muslim from abiding by Sharia law if he chose to do so.
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.
This thought experiment also illustrates the broader point that only state laws passed by legislatures or referenda — and U.S. laws passed by Congress — provide the rule of decision for issues that are properly before our courts.
If Mr. Awad wants to live his life by his perceptions of Sharia law, he is entitled to do so, to the extent that it is consistent with federal and state law. But no one has a First Amendment right to require U.S. courts to rule according to foreign laws, including those that implement religious views. (For an example of where such a requirement might lead, read this Cully Stimson post about a New Jersey trial judge excusing a husband’s criminal conduct “because under Sharia law, [a] Muslim husband had a ‘right’ to rape his wife.”)
Our society and legal system are flexible. We make reasonable accommodations for various religions. Throughout American history, religious principles have served as a basis for decisions in many different contexts, and our precedents and traditions recognize this. But neither Jews nor Christians are allowed to force their religious laws and views into our state court systems as a substitute for the laws passed by our elected representatives.
That difference is illustrated by an example. If a mortgage lender wants to structure a mortgage for a Muslim in order to satisfy certain Islamic principles prohibiting interest, the lender can certainly do so by writing the contract terms accordingly. But if a lawsuit is filed over the mortgage, the deal will be construed according to applicable state and federal mortgage and contract laws.
That is much different from adding a contract provision that says any court dispute over the contract will be resolved under Sharia law. Such a provision should not be allowed, as it would permit foreign, religious-based law to override our state and federal laws.
In a blatant example of political correctness run amok, Judge Miles-LaGrange concluded that granting injunctive relief would not be adverse to the public interest. She is wrong. Striking down a constitutional law passed by the direct expression of the public will is certainly adverse to the public interest.
One final odd note: Judge Miles-LaGrange didn’t enjoin the new law from going into effect, which is what a judge normally does when a court finds a law unconstitutional. Instead, she enjoined the state from certifying the election results, something I have never seen before. So Oklahoma is prohibited from declaring the official outcome of the election. Although that effectively prevents the law from being implemented, it is a bizarre holding that helps obscure the fact that more than 70 percent of Oklahomans approved the primacy of American law in their state court system.
— Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former Justice Department official.
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.