What a stupid argument. A will would not be invalidated for incorporating muslim teachings unless the will somehow violated state or federal law. For him to make that argument, he must demonstrate how the teachings fo Mohammed incorporated into the will violate state or federal estate law. In so doing, he would actually be making a pretty good case in SUPPORT of the amendment passed by the voters.
CA judges do it all the time. It’s really alarming when OK judges go berserk.
This will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which is dominated by Reagan and Bush appointees. I expect the ruling will be gutted.
Ooops, I meant Tenth Circuit...
I don't think simply appealing rulings like this and waiting for sanity to strike is enough anymore. So, which of these other options do you think would be preferable?
1) Ignore the ruling, certify the election, and go on with life; or
2) on the theory that the just authority of real judges (as opposed to this ungulate) would suffer if we flout stupid rulings, start a multi-year, Congressional campaign to impeach and remove all judges who flagrantly ignore or disobey the Constitution as written.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
Time to begin impeachment proceedings.
Miles-LaGrange is to rule next week.
she extended a temp restraining order blocking the results of the referendum.
and, BTW, the NJ judge's ruling was overturned.
There never should have been a voter referendum to mandate that the courts follow the law (and NOT use Sharia Law) they are already supposed to follow the law (our law)
This gave them an excuse to challenge it, and strike it down with some feeble excuse, thereby giving people exactly what they didn't want.
The people never would have voted for a law requiring sharia law.
So the muzzie supporters did the two-step: They passed a law banning sharia law, so they could overturn that, and claim it means they CAN use sharia law.
Want gay marriage? pass a law banning it, then declare that law unconstitutional- viola: Gay Marriage
They use this all the time on us- and we keep falling for it.
Instead of passing a new law saying we will obey the old law, we should just obey the old laws.
Then fire anyone who fails to do their job.(impeach? how the hell do you get rid of judges?)
We see no distinction in quality between Islamic terrorism and Sharia law: only a distinction in degree.
So, what if that Sharia laws forbids a woman as judge? What if a religion is brought to court that bans blacks as anything but slaves?
This BULLCRAP isn’t going to stand!!!
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.
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.
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.
Sharia Law is an establishment of religion, forbidden buy the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
As far as I can tell,
We just received another reason for keeping traditional marriage the law of the land.
Sheesssh!