Federal judge in Oklahoma finds “Anti-Sharia law” amendment unconstitutional

The Progressive Pulse ^ | August 19,2013 | Sharon McCloskey

[Tailgunner Joe]

"Obamah Akbar!"

[Turbo Pig]

Can someone please tell me why this ban on Sharia law was even necessary???

IIRC, there were two concerns for laws like this.

1) Supreme Court decisions in which justices flat out said they were using international law when making their legal desicions.

2) In an effort to pursue islamic dominance and multiculturalism, there has been a legal push from islamists and leftists, both, to create extra legal courts, officially recognized by the government, in which Sharia judges would rule on non criminal cases in the islamic community. These types of courts have been established in western countries; England comes to mind as well as France, I think. Here in the states, there have been pushes in several locations for them to be created. IIRC, San Diego, Deerborn, and some place in Tenn. were mentioned during the conversation.

The particulars may not be 100% in my recounting; you get the gist of it, though.

[cizinec]

I'm lost here.

So are you saying that because judges have used Roman Law in the past (which makes little sense outside of Louisiana) the legislative branch does not have the authority to state that their laws must be interpreted according to our cultural understanding and legal tradition from which the laws they wrote originated? They cannot state that other laws, specifically international law (which IS based on Roman Law) and Sharia Law cannot be applied, since they fall outside our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (or for any reason they so choose)?

That's like saying a legislature cannot state, “A judge cannot use laws outside this jurisdiction because the judge prefers the results of the application of another jurisdiction's laws.” Good grief, it's stating the obvious that judges have simply ignored.

If the Oklahoma Legislature cannot direct its judges on how to understand the laws it creates on behalf of the People of Oklahoma, why have a legislature at all? A judge can just deconstruct the clear language of a statute to say the opposite of what it says to everyone else just trying to abide by the law.

The legislature is here to MAKE laws (or, better yet, to delete some). If it be the case that this is a poorly worded law, we are ruled by the whim of appointed judges.

[cizinec]

I'm lost here.

So are you saying that because judges have used Roman Law in the past (which makes little sense outside of Louisiana) the legislative branch does not have the authority to state that their laws must be interpreted according to our cultural understanding and legal tradition from which the laws they wrote originated? They cannot state that other laws, specifically international law (which IS based on Roman Law) and Sharia Law cannot be applied, since they fall outside our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (or for any reason they so choose)?

That's like saying a legislature cannot state, “A judge cannot use laws outside this jurisdiction because the judge prefers the results of the application of another jurisdiction's laws.” Good grief, it's stating the obvious that judges have simply ignored.

If the Oklahoma Legislature cannot direct its judges on how to understand the laws it creates on behalf of the People of Oklahoma, why have a legislature at all? A judge can just deconstruct the clear language of a statute to say the opposite of what it says to everyone else just trying to abide by the law.

The legislature is here to MAKE laws (or, better yet, to delete some). If it be the case that this is a poorly worded law, we are ruled by the whim of appointed judges.

[3catsanadog]

Re # 6 - so if a Muslim kills a homosexual, he can’t be arrested and tried in court because he was just following Sharia law?

[LucianOfSamasota]

Sometimes I think one of these judges should actually read the Constitution.

[Rapscallion]

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange in Oklahoma City should be impeached and removed from office.

[Steve Van Doorn]

If there is no law presented that doesn't fit the any existing law the judge can find law from other old school law that does. But you are very correct that judges today just make up things as they go along rather then go by the book.

If this law was worded in a way that only targeted laws that contradict our laws then it should easily pass. Just use an example such as rape under sharia is completely different then ours.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Bump