Judge slams state's anti-Shariah amendment

WorldNetDaily ^ | November 29, 2010 | Drew Zahn

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which bans state courts from considering Islamic, or Shariah, law when deciding cases, hit a major roadblock today, when a federal judge granted a permanent injunction against the measure.

Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma blocked the state from certifying the amendment – approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters through a ballot initiative known as State Question 755 – until an final determination is made on a lawsuit brought against it by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Miles-LaGrange not only granted the injunction on grounds the lawsuit was likely to succeed, but also delivered harsh criticism of the amendment itself.

"Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals," Miles-LaGrange writes in her decision. "Having carefully reviewed the briefs on this issue … the Court finds that [plaintiff Muneer Awad] has shown that he will suffer an injury in fact, specifically, an invasion of his First Amendment rights."

In her decision, the judge said CAIR demonstrated the Shariah ban could be viewed as an "official condemnation" of Islam, resulting in "a stigma" attached to Muslims within the political community. She also argued that since many Islamic last wills and testaments require consideration of Shariah law, under the approved amendment courts would not be able to probate Islamic wills.

Therefore, she ruled, CAIR "has made a strong showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim asserting a violation of the Free Exercise Clause."

CAIR celebrated the ruling as a victory:

[freekitty]

The judges are getting dumber all of the time.

[freekitty]

Why don’t they put a 5 year old up there to decide these cases. We could probably get a better deal.

[VeniVidiVici]

She (dumbass judge) also argued that since many Islamic last wills and testaments require consideration of Shariah law, under the approved amendment courts would not be able to probate Islamic wills.

Ok. So is this judge saying that in probating an Islamic will that Shariah "law" trumps the legal law of the land, or is she just grandstanding in saying a will couldn't be probated if done in accordance with Shariah "law".

[tom h]

"Judge slams state's anti-Shariah amendment ... Justice VickiMiles-LaGrange is a Clinton appointee":

The honorable judge is also a member of [ahem] a race that, combined with a progressive mentality, will automatically sympathize with Muslims regardless of the threat or danger to her country.

Here's a photo of the addle-brained moron that made the decision:

Note also the special parts of her background that demonstrate why her decision should come as no surprise; no doubt CAIR shopped around for a sympathetic judge:

* College degree from the University of Ghana in Accra, Ghana, West Africa -- WTFO?

* Law degree from Howard University, the all-black college in WDC

* Lecturer in the Women's Studies Program at the University of Maryland, College Park

* Assistant DA for Oklahoma County from 1983 to 1986, where she prosecuted sex crimes.

* During her term fought for legislation to improve the welfare of both women and children

* Served as a Oklahoma State Senator as a Democrat

[tom h]

"Judge slams state's anti-Shariah amendment ... Justice VickiMiles-LaGrange is a Clinton appointee":

The honorable judge is also a member of [ahem] a race that, combined with a progressive mentality, will automatically sympathize with Muslims regardless of the threat or danger to her country.

Here's a photo of the addle-brained moron that made the decision:

Note also the special parts of her background that demonstrate why her decision should come as no surprise; no doubt CAIR shopped around for a sympathetic judge:

* College degree from the University of Ghana in Accra, Ghana, West Africa -- WTFO?

* Law degree from Howard University, the all-black college in WDC

* Lecturer in the Women's Studies Program at the University of Maryland, College Park

* Assistant DA for Oklahoma County from 1983 to 1986, where she prosecuted sex crimes.

* During her term fought for legislation to improve the welfare of both women and children

* Served as a Oklahoma State Senator as a Democrat

[BigCinBigD]

For some reason a barrel of tar and a hundred pounds of feathers comes to mind...

[dennisw]

Ghana???

[OldDeckHand]

"The Oklahoma Constitutional amendment should have made clear it only was referring to the application of foreign or religious law in cases where both parties had not previously agreed in writing to having a particular law applied in a particular situation. "

Yes, the law can best be described as poorly constructed. Maybe they're just not doing a whole lot of international business in OK or perhaps they don't teach choice-of-law in OK law schools, I'm not sure.

What is odd about this particular case isn't it's outcome (I guess), but the fact that it was heard in the first place. To me, it seems like there are substantial issues with standing, ripeness and a little thing called abstention doctrine.

For these reasons (and a few others) I suspect that OK will eventually win this battle, but the long-term viability of the amendment probably isn't very strong.

[DustyMoment]

Oklahoma, you know what to do.

[Squantos]

Is it not a reach now for her to understand under sharia law she is not allowed to hear the case aka be the judge ?

Stooopid Clintonistas.....

[goldstategop]

It wasn’t a permanent injunction - just a preliminary one pending a trial on the issue. WND should get the facts the straight. The judge can’t declare it unconstitutional until the facts are determined at trial and then are appeals. This will take years.

[Nevadan]

re: “Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma blocked the state from certifying the amendment – approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. . .”

What would happen if the State of Oklahoma said that it would not abide by her ruling - what could this judge do?

I’ve often wondered when, O, Lord, when, will the first Govenor and legislature of a state, with some intestinal fortitude, refuse to abide by these out of control Federal “judges” who put injunctions against constitutionally passed state laws and amendments. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand by the States to stand up to these judges who are clearly acting outside of the U.S. Constitution’s authority.

[the scotsman]

Family disputes, business disputes.

Only in five English cities, none in Scotland, Wales or NI, or the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. No more in England than the five and no more planned.

And it is only a civil law, it cannot supercede English law, to do so would break the law (Arbitration Act 1996).

[the scotsman]

Please see my earlier reply on Sharia in England.

[Jack Black]

The Congressional delegation from the state should begin impeachment of this judge at the start of the 111th Congress and try to remove her from office.

Enough of these judges over-ruling millions of citizens. "WE THE PEOPLE" have spoken.

Boehner should announce a policy of encouraging straight party line votes for Judicial Impeachments where the GOP caucus from a given state supports that judges removal.

It might be that the Senate would not convict these parasites, but even forcing them to go sit in the doc and be judged would be a good idea.

Plus, impeachment trials are time consuming, it would slow the Senate way down and prevent more Harry Reid mischeif.

[ZULU]

“And it is only a civil law,”

But do the tax-paying Non-Muslim citizens of Great Britain have to in anyway support or subsidize these courts or the legal actions needed to enforce their decisions?

[the scotsman]

I assume so (although I will check).

Even if they do, the non-Jewish taxpayers of Britain have been paying for the Beth Din jewish civil law for over 100 years.

[ZULU]

I don’t know anything about the Jewish Law. Never heard of it, but if the British Taxpayer is funding that, its no good either.

But to my knowledge, Jews haven’t been beheading or blowing up people to make them convert to Judaism and stoning isn’t an acceptable form of punishment in Israel anymore.

My guess is the British Taxpayer IS paying for the Islamic Sharia Courts, but it would be interesting to find out for certain.

The whole concept of having two separate judicial systems in the same country defies logic. Suppose a civil case arises between a non-Muslim and a Muslim? Then what? Which law takes precedence?

[ZULU]

I thought the problem with two separate judicial systems in England was settled by Henry II with Thomas a’ Becket. Becket lost.

[noinfringers2]

The judges ruling and reasons are much more applicable to ‘birthers’ than muslims. Just goes to show that the judicial system is run on whims of little Ceasers. It would be interesting if the state of Oklahoma pulled a Jackson and told the judge’You ruled it now enforce it’ We the People trump a single opinion.