Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge rules in favor of Muslim man on State Question 755; Injunction filed
newsok.com ^ | November 29, 2010 | Nolan Clay

Posted on 11/29/2010 11:59:46 AM PST by gwjack

A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction that keeps a restriction against Islamic Sharia law out of the state Constitution for now. Oklahomans on Nov. 2 approved the amendment with more than 70 percent of the vote.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: constitution; sharialaw; statesrights; tenthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: gwjack; LucyT; Las Vegas Ron; Candor7
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. Photobucket
41 posted on 11/29/2010 3:33:53 PM PST by mojitojoe (In itÂ’s 1600 years of existence, Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gwjack

She’s an idiot. Trouble is, there’s so many of them in black robes these days.


42 posted on 11/29/2010 3:37:37 PM PST by Puddleglum ("due to the record harvest, rationing will continue as usual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
Boy I wish I could pick and choose what laws should apply to me. But I can't because I'm white, male, straight, middle class. It would be unfair racism, sexism and homophobia to expect consistant laws applied.

Let's say Person A gets married in Thailand, and then divorced there. He comes over here. Ex-wife comes over here and makes claims that he's not legally divorced from her, and she wants to divorce him under American law. How does the judge figure out what the real story is, without looking at the Thai documents and finding out whether the divorce was valid under Thai law?

Let's say Person B comes over to the US on a business trip, dies in an accident here, and there's a settlement. He has two wives back home in Kuwait, both of whom are entitled to a share in the settlement. If only US law were applicable, then only one would be entitled to any of the money.

The point that I'm making is that the amendment was clumsily worded. There are cases, specifically regarding foreign nationals, where foreign facts are relevant to the determination of a case. This has ALWAYS been considered by US courts, who for over two centuries have had to deal with cases where marriages, divorces, adoptions, and inheritance issues relating to foreign-born residents had to be worked out equitably.

43 posted on 11/29/2010 4:50:36 PM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

The people will beomme her worst nightmare. Will she dare walk through the crowds of protestors to get to her court room?

Patriots closed the courts down in WOrcester MA, in 1774 in this way, when the courts began rendering decisions to support the kings new land policies which included large grants to the British nobility to create small kingdoms..

This judge feathers the nests of the muslims who are
intent on destroying America. This judge is a fascist who sees the muslims as the instruments of historical justice against the white man.


44 posted on 11/29/2010 4:55:39 PM PST by Candor7 (Obama . fascist info..http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_ipthe_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

“Of course, the US already has laws of Citizenship and laws that regulate aliens and defectors and other non-citizens”

Exactly, and that’s what treaties are for. Those foreign laws are already incorporated into U.S. law through agreements with foreign nations. So in reality, it’s really U.S. law being followed in those cases. As long as those laws don’t conflict with our Constitution then there’s no problem. Sharia law of course has no place in our society and conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.


45 posted on 11/29/2010 5:06:10 PM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

THAT tells us all we need to know!

___________________

Chalk one up for the girls LOL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZJ3BVCCDEE&NR=1


46 posted on 11/29/2010 5:17:27 PM PST by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ; All

“The state of Oklahoma should simply assert its right to enforce the amendment. This is a state issue, and since the amendment doesn’t conflict with the U.S. constitution and actually supports it, the federal judge has no business sticking her nose into it.”

I agree with you. It is a STATE constitutional matter. The new governor needs to force the issue and make the board certify the results. If the federal judge doesn’t like it, then the governor needs to have her arrested and escorted off Oklahoma soil.

The person suing does not have a case....he is NOT harmed nor is he kept from practicing his religious beliefs. The whole thing is bogus. The judge must be positioning herself to be a SCOTUS nominee by the Obama administration.


47 posted on 11/29/2010 6:21:00 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

That is NOT what this is about and you know it.

This OK proposition was done in response to a few court rulings that DID use Shariah law.

This is about the encroachment of Shariah and foreign law in our courts. Those things ARE creeping in. Just a few years ago Kennedy was speaking proudly about using French law in a ruling here in the US.

People like you really piss me off. A bunch of people lived in awful conditions, suffering and dying for the freedom you now so carelessly throw away. There is a reason this country is going down the crapper and I’m looking at it right now.

And you want to sit here and act like you’re the smartest person in the room.

I can sit here give you whole stack of “what if...?”s too. Or you just concede my point that this is a terrible idea.

Our courts would NEVER allow “Christian Law” to be considered in our courts. Hell, liberal groups are suing to get the 10 commandments kicked out!

There is clear favoritism being granted here. And that is illegal.


48 posted on 11/29/2010 6:45:00 PM PST by Tzimisce (It's just another day in Obamaland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

So a guy from Africa comes over here with his slaves. Are they still slaves?

So a guy from Africa comes over here and wants to perform female circumcision on his wife. Do we let him?

Give me a break please.


49 posted on 11/29/2010 6:46:32 PM PST by Tzimisce (It's just another day in Obamaland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

International law has always been part of the American judicial system and must since we do not stand apart from the rest of mankind. But don’t expect to convince the terminally obtuse of this.


50 posted on 11/29/2010 7:02:48 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“International law has always been part of the American judicial system and must since we do not stand apart from the rest of mankind. But don’t expect to convince the terminally obtuse of this.”

Your lexicon is balderdash of the first magnitude; too much hashish in your brain cells can cause that. Establishing a fitting moniker is symptomatic.


51 posted on 11/29/2010 7:43:24 PM PST by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

and the damage he did just goes on and on...


52 posted on 11/29/2010 8:51:25 PM PST by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Skeez

Zombies throwing bread at giant mutant maggots?


53 posted on 11/29/2010 9:23:36 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Ahh so that means we should support a move to sharia law?


54 posted on 11/30/2010 3:01:38 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

In the mean time, New Jersey is already accommodating Sharia law, allow U.S. rape law to be trumped by Islamic practices:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html


55 posted on 11/30/2010 6:01:29 AM PST by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

TRAITOR! Impeach, try and sentence the felon!


56 posted on 11/30/2010 8:19:20 AM PST by Ronbo1948
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

More destruction from the “legal class”


57 posted on 11/30/2010 11:27:25 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Not at all. American law has always “considered” laws in other nations. This is not the same thing as “following” or “abiding by” other nations laws. Words have meanings and that get in the way of ideological understanding.

I doubt that you despise Islam any more than I.
To me it is a fraudulent religion and more akin to a street gang than a religion.

However, the laws of nations must be known by lawyers in certain circumstances even if those nations are Islamic.


58 posted on 11/30/2010 12:47:24 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid

Lexicon? Hashish? Can’t dispute the actually sentence so you whine about my “lexicon”. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word and tell me which meaning you are striving for not that any of them are applicable.

Perhaps you are also unaware of the meaning of “hashish” as well.


59 posted on 11/30/2010 12:53:03 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid

Above “actually” should read “actual”.


60 posted on 11/30/2010 12:54:36 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson