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 ...
She’s an idiot. Trouble is, there’s so many of them in black robes these days.
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.
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.
“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.
THAT tells us all we need to know!
___________________
Chalk one up for the girls LOL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZJ3BVCCDEE&NR=1
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
and the damage he did just goes on and on...
Zombies throwing bread at giant mutant maggots?
Ahh so that means we should support a move to sharia law?
In the mean time, New Jersey is already accommodating Sharia law, allow U.S. rape law to be trumped by Islamic practices:
TRAITOR! Impeach, try and sentence the felon!
More destruction from the “legal class”
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.
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.
Above “actually” should read “actual”.
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.