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


1 posted on 03/23/2011 6:51:41 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: tobyhill; JulieRNR21; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Cindy

Isn’t this grounds for impeachment?


2 posted on 03/23/2011 6:55:26 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Muslims are a people of love, peace, and goodwill, and if you say that they aren't, they'll kill you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

Maybe the judge got so wrapped up in the case that he forgot what country he was in ....


3 posted on 03/23/2011 6:55:41 PM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

And then again under Islamic Law you can just agree to disagree and then decapitate each other.
Please.


4 posted on 03/23/2011 7:01:49 PM PDT by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

If they wanted to use Islamic law to settle the dispute, they should have never taken to a US court, they should have taken it to one of their religious leaders.


5 posted on 03/23/2011 7:06:47 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill; Larry Lucido; humblegunner; Salamander; Markos33

The judge in this case is simply applying the same principle to the Mohammedans that US Courts have used for years in dealing with Christian Churches.

There is long standing recognition of ecclesiastical autonomy in dealing with internal church matters. For example, the Roman Catholic church has its own legal system, complete with Canon Law and Canon Lawyers.

On the other hand, if someone were to argue that Mohammedanism is not a bona fide religion, but rather a murderous, cultic, death worshiping socio/political movement, which should not be afforded protection of US Law under any premise, then I’d say you had more of a solid case.

But, given the assumption that they have religious standing, this judge’s ruling was absolutely correct.


6 posted on 03/23/2011 7:11:17 PM PDT by shibumi (Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

This is nothing new, and is not creeping Sharia. This is simply a doctrine that allows courts to take a pass on getting involved in religious matters. It’s good that everyone is on the lookout, but this doesn’t seem to be a departure from our legal tradition.


10 posted on 03/23/2011 7:17:35 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill
He's not "applying Islamic law."

He is enforcing the terms of a contract between consenting parties, in this case a Board of Directors.

The fact that one faction of the parties changed their minds doesn't change the contract.

Don't enter into a contract you don't intend to honor.

11 posted on 03/23/2011 7:20:26 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an “arbitration” award was correct,........................... Isn’t arbitration non judicial? Decided by a panel of uninterested parties? Sounds fishy.


14 posted on 03/23/2011 7:27:26 PM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (I see a dark cloud coming over the horizon, and its reminiscent of 1939.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

You’re a bunch of stupid, ignorant racists and I’ll do whatever I want.

Now pay your taxes - I need a raise. :)

-judge’s defense


15 posted on 03/23/2011 7:28:33 PM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

Why can’t we use American law to overturn his decision and remove him from the bench.


22 posted on 03/23/2011 8:19:13 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

DumbA** Judge.

Once it gets used/incorporated, then it becomes precedent — and can be applied to future cases/courts.

Idiot Judge — or maybe that was the intent.


23 posted on 03/23/2011 8:24:30 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill

*


24 posted on 03/23/2011 8:30:47 PM PDT by fightinJAG (I am sick of people adding comments to titles in the title box. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill; wideawake

As I’ve observed before, it’s just like professional wrestling. We have several “angles” going at once, each with its own “heels.” We have the islamic “angle,” the Hispanic “angle,” the Black militant “angle,” and the homosexual “angle.” Logically, these groups cannot co-exist together and yet there is nary a peep of disharmony in the heels’ dressing room.


33 posted on 03/24/2011 8:18:09 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Velo' `amad 'echad lifneyhem! Velo' `amad 'echad bifneyhem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tobyhill
The final arbiter in Islamic law is Kalashnikov.
34 posted on 03/24/2011 9:55:17 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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