"Federal judge rules against 'Sharia law' restrictions in Oklahoma Constitution"

[Sunni Man]

An Oklahoma City federal judge has struck down a constitutional amendment aimed at restricting judges from considering Islamic 'Sharia law' while making a judgement in the United States.

A ballot measure was passed with 70 percent of the vote during the Republican landslide on November 2, urging a ban the 'Sharia law'.

However within two days, Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had sued to block the amendment, arguing that the state was condemning his religious beliefs.

The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 or better known as "Save Our State," had sought for a temporary restraining order to block the results of the electionrom being certified by the state Election Board on November 9, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1.

While Muslims claim the state is discriminating against their religion, supporters, most of whom are Christian conservatives, say the amendment is needed to stop radical Muslims from imposing Shariah law in the United States.

According to the New York Times, Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of Federal District Court in Oklahoma City said the measure did not appear to pass constitutional muster.

She said it conveyed a message that the state favours one religion or particular belief over others, and that added federal courts have long held that such a message violates the First Amendment's clause prohibiting the establishment of a state religion.

"While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice-of-law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures-regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any-the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith," the judge wrote.

Judge LaGrange also barred the State Election Commission from certifying the results of the election until she makes a final ruling, but did not set any timetable for her decision.

After today's ruling, Awad said he was satisfied with the decision.

"We are definitely satisfied. She is recognizing the majority vote cannot be used to take away my constitutional rights," he added.

www.USA Today - MyFox Memphis

 

[Intense]

I'll look forward to the Appeal. The Judge will be overruled.

However within two days, Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had sued to block the amendment, arguing that the state was condemning his religious beliefs.

What is in conflict here is parts of Islam that are in conflict with State and Federal Law, that is all that is in question. You foolishly think that you can manipulate the rule of law like you manipulate Politicians. No aspect of Sharia will precedence over the Constitutional Rights of Sharia's Victims.
__________________

 

[Sunni Man]

No aspect of Sharia will precedence over the Constitutional Rights of Sharia's Victims.

"Sharia's Victims"??

 

[Intense]

Why do think Sharia Law is being opposed in the first place?

 

[kwc57]

Her order is a preliminary injunction. She will lose on appeal. The law does not deny a Muslim his constitutional rights. The law says that international law and Sharia law can not be considered in state courts when making judgements. In other words, precedent must be set using US federal and state law. Vicki Miles-LaGrange has been one of our more activist judges here in Oklahoma for years and she has simply slowed the law down.

 

[goldcatt]

I'll look forward to the Appeal. The Judge will be overruled.

However within two days, Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had sued to block the amendment, arguing that the state was condemning his religious beliefs.

What is in conflict here is parts of Islam that are in conflict with State and Federal Law, that is all that is in question. You foolishly think that you can manipulate the rule of law like you manipulate Politicians. No aspect of Sharia will precedence over the Constitutional Rights of Sharia's Victims.
__________________

Sorry, Intense. The judge's ruling will stand.

The parties are free to introduce any information they want in their Court documents. The judge determines what can be heard on a case by case basis, the jury decides what it wants to give credence to. That's the foundation of our system.

We just had the Supreme Court deny cert to a birther case that used Biblical passages in its petition. The petition was not granted, but it was allowed to be filed and went through the appropriate channels without regard to its religious content.

If we're going to ban all religion from the courtroom, then do it. But you'd have to ban it all, not allow the Bible to be filed and argued but not the Koran.

The judge was correct.

 

[kwc57]

It might help if you saw what we actually voted on in the ballot.

STATE QUESTION NO. 755 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 355

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

 

[goldcatt]

Her order is a preliminary injunction. She will lose on appeal. The law does not deny a Muslim his constitutional rights. The law says that international law and Sharia law can not be considered in state courts when making judgements. In other words, precedent must be set using US federal and state law. Vicki Miles-LaGrange has been one of our more activist judges here in Oklahoma for years and she has simply slowed the law down.

And yet the Restatement of Torts was recently updated using British rules as the guideline, since they are so similar to those prevailing in the US and they have one clearly stated rule to work from.

The courts both State and Federal use anything they can to determine issues of first impression. Religious law of any kind isn't going to carry much weight if any, but international law is often argued and used as a guide even at the SCOTUS level to look for a solution.

 

[Intense]

I'll look forward to the Appeal. The Judge will be overruled.

However within two days, Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had sued to block the amendment, arguing that the state was condemning his religious beliefs.

What is in conflict here is parts of Islam that are in conflict with State and Federal Law, that is all that is in question. You foolishly think that you can manipulate the rule of law like you manipulate Politicians. No aspect of Sharia will precedence over the Constitutional Rights of Sharia's Victims.
__________________

Sorry, Intense. The judge's ruling will stand.

The parties are free to introduce any information they want in their Court documents. The judge determines what can be heard on a case by case basis, the jury decides what it wants to give credence to. That's the foundation of our system.

We just had the Supreme Court deny cert to a birther case that used Biblical passages in its petition. The petition was not granted, but it was allowed to be filed and went through the appropriate channels without regard to its religious content.

If we're going to ban all religion from the courtroom, then do it. But you'd have to ban it all, not allow the Bible to be filed and argued but not the Koran.

The judge was correct.

I understand your point am and not in contention with it as long as Religious Law or the Interpretation of it does not supersede or take precedence over Higher Laws it finds itself in conflict with. For example, here, in this Country, changing your Religion is neither a crime or a death sentence. When Sharia Law comes in conflict with Statute, it is no longer a matter of freedom to practice your Religion. When your practice of Religion violates Other's Constitutional Rights, the Constitutional Right's of your intended Victim take precedence over what you want or don't want.

 

[goldcatt]

I'll look forward to the Appeal. The Judge will be overruled.



What is in conflict here is parts of Islam that are in conflict with State and Federal Law, that is all that is in question. You foolishly think that you can manipulate the rule of law like you manipulate Politicians. No aspect of Sharia will precedence over the Constitutional Rights of Sharia's Victims.
__________________

Sorry, Intense. The judge's ruling will stand.

The parties are free to introduce any information they want in their Court documents. The judge determines what can be heard on a case by case basis, the jury decides what it wants to give credence to. That's the foundation of our system.

We just had the Supreme Court deny cert to a birther case that used Biblical passages in its petition. The petition was not granted, but it was allowed to be filed and went through the appropriate channels without regard to its religious content.

If we're going to ban all religion from the courtroom, then do it. But you'd have to ban it all, not allow the Bible to be filed and argued but not the Koran.

The judge was correct.

I understand your point am and not in contention with it as long as Religious Law or the Interpretation of it does not supersede or take precedence over Higher Laws it finds itself in conflict with. For example, here, in this Country, changing your Religion is neither a crime or a death sentence. When Sharia Law comes in conflict with Statute, it is no longer a matter of freedom to practice your Religion. When your practice of Religion violates Other's Constitutional Rights, the Constitutional Right's of your intended Victim take precedence over what you want or don't want.

Of course the First Amendment takes precedence. Which is why arguing religious law in secular courts is futile. But if somebody wants to make the futile gesture, the law cannot pick and choose which religious groups may and may not do so. Either they all can, which is the current situation, or they all can't, which would arguably run afoul of free exercise.

 

[Intense]

Sorry, Intense. The judge's ruling will stand.

The parties are free to introduce any information they want in their Court documents. The judge determines what can be heard on a case by case basis, the jury decides what it wants to give credence to. That's the foundation of our system.

We just had the Supreme Court deny cert to a birther case that used Biblical passages in its petition. The petition was not granted, but it was allowed to be filed and went through the appropriate channels without regard to its religious content.

If we're going to ban all religion from the courtroom, then do it. But you'd have to ban it all, not allow the Bible to be filed and argued but not the Koran.

The judge was correct.

I understand your point am and not in contention with it as long as Religious Law or the Interpretation of it does not supersede or take precedence over Higher Laws it finds itself in conflict with. For example, here, in this Country, changing your Religion is neither a crime or a death sentence. When Sharia Law comes in conflict with Statute, it is no longer a matter of freedom to practice your Religion. When your practice of Religion violates Other's Constitutional Rights, the Constitutional Right's of your intended Victim take precedence over what you want or don't want.

Of course the First Amendment takes precedence. Which is why arguing religious law in secular courts is futile. But if somebody wants to make the futile gesture, the law cannot pick and choose which religious groups may and may not do so. Either they all can, which is the current situation, or they all can't, which would arguably run afoul of free exercise.

You are arguing the argument Phase, which is not in dispute. Court Rulings are based on the Rule Of Law, not contrary to it. That is my point. State what you want in your defense, it's your neck. The ruling cannot substitute Religious Doctrine over Statute where there is conflict.

 

[goldcatt]

I understand your point am and not in contention with it as long as Religious Law or the Interpretation of it does not supersede or take precedence over Higher Laws it finds itself in conflict with. For example, here, in this Country, changing your Religion is neither a crime or a death sentence. When Sharia Law comes in conflict with Statute, it is no longer a matter of freedom to practice your Religion. When your practice of Religion violates Other's Constitutional Rights, the Constitutional Right's of your intended Victim take precedence over what you want or don't want.

Of course the First Amendment takes precedence. Which is why arguing religious law in secular courts is futile. But if somebody wants to make the futile gesture, the law cannot pick and choose which religious groups may and may not do so. Either they all can, which is the current situation, or they all can't, which would arguably run afoul of free exercise.

You are arguing the argument Phase, which is not in dispute. Court Rulings are based on the Rule Of Law, not contrary to it. That is my point. State what you want in your defense, it's your neck. The ruling cannot substitute Religious Doctrine over Statute where there is conflict.

Exactly.

 

[ConHog]

Pretty dumb argument. I mean are people afraid that a judge is going to allow a sentence of chopping someone's head off or some shit b/c that's what Sharia Law would allow? GC is correct, within the evidential rules parties are allowed to enter whatever evidence they would like. Courts and juries are free to ignore it as they see fit.

 

[Madeline]

This constitutional amendment is a terrible black eye for Oklahomans, and cannot be struck down fast enough.

 

[Intense]

Pretty dumb argument. I mean are people afraid that a judge is going to allow a sentence of chopping someone's head off or some shit b/c that's what Sharia Law would allow? GC is correct, within the evidential rules parties are allowed to enter whatever evidence they would like. Courts and juries are free to ignore it as they see fit.

That is not the argument from the Muslim perspective, which is to expand on Sharia Law. Arguing it and ruling on it is the stated goal. They will not be satisfied with any ruling that goes against the agenda. Are you Sharia compliant??? Sounds like you might not know when you are being mugged. I look forward to the Appeal. It is nobody's Constitutional Right to be Tried under Sharia Law. You want Sharia Law, relocate. WTFU.

"While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice-of-law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures-regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any-the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith," the judge wrote. Road Runner Search

 

[Revere]

Sharia is a "black eye" to modern civilization.

 

[Sallow]

I'll look forward to the Appeal. The Judge will be overruled.



What is in conflict here is parts of Islam that are in conflict with State and Federal Law, that is all that is in question. You foolishly think that you can manipulate the rule of law like you manipulate Politicians. No aspect of Sharia will precedence over the Constitutional Rights of Sharia's Victims.
__________________

Sorry, Intense. The judge's ruling will stand.

The parties are free to introduce any information they want in their Court documents. The judge determines what can be heard on a case by case basis, the jury decides what it wants to give credence to. That's the foundation of our system.

We just had the Supreme Court deny cert to a birther case that used Biblical passages in its petition. The petition was not granted, but it was allowed to be filed and went through the appropriate channels without regard to its religious content.

If we're going to ban all religion from the courtroom, then do it. But you'd have to ban it all, not allow the Bible to be filed and argued but not the Koran.

The judge was correct.

I understand your point am and not in contention with it as long as Religious Law or the Interpretation of it does not supersede or take precedence over Higher Laws it finds itself in conflict with. For example, here, in this Country, changing your Religion is neither a crime or a death sentence. When Sharia Law comes in conflict with Statute, it is no longer a matter of freedom to practice your Religion. When your practice of Religion violates Other's Constitutional Rights, the Constitutional Right's of your intended Victim take precedence over what you want or don't want.

She's right and the judge is correct.

But I am all for banning all religion in courts.

 

[goldcatt]

Pretty dumb argument. I mean are people afraid that a judge is going to allow a sentence of chopping someone's head off or some shit b/c that's what Sharia Law would allow? GC is correct, within the evidential rules parties are allowed to enter whatever evidence they would like. Courts and juries are free to ignore it as they see fit.

Yep. There are also a lot of shades of gray here. Of course religious law isn't going to determine any legal rulings of the court. But as it pertains to the beliefs of a defendant, for example, it may be considered as evidence of anything from motive to mitigation to a factor in sentencing. Telling the court it can NOT under any circumstances consider religious law when making a decision or ruling, final or interlocutory, is far too overbroad. It's a breach of the separation of powers, among all the other things. That dog won't hunt.

 

[Revere]

Pretty dumb argument. I mean are people afraid that a judge is going to allow a sentence of chopping someone's head off or some shit b/c that's what Sharia Law would allow? GC is correct, within the evidential rules parties are allowed to enter whatever evidence they would like. Courts and juries are free to ignore it as they see fit.

Yep. There are also a lot of shades of gray here. Of course religious law isn't going to determine any legal rulings of the court. But as it pertains to the beliefs of a defendant, for example, it may be considered as evidence of anything from motive to mitigation to a factor in sentencing. Telling the court it can NOT under any circumstances consider religious law when making a decision or ruling, final or interlocutory, is far too overbroad. It's a breach of the separation of powers, among all the other things. That dog won't hunt.

You're full of shit. You want to favor the establishment of religion. That IS unconstutional.

 

[ConHog]

Pretty dumb argument. I mean are people afraid that a judge is going to allow a sentence of chopping someone's head off or some shit b/c that's what Sharia Law would allow? GC is correct, within the evidential rules parties are allowed to enter whatever evidence they would like. Courts and juries are free to ignore it as they see fit.

Yep. There are also a lot of shades of gray here. Of course religious law isn't going to determine any legal rulings of the court. But as it pertains to the beliefs of a defendant, for example, it may be considered as evidence of anything from motive to mitigation to a factor in sentencing. Telling the court it can NOT under any circumstances consider religious law when making a decision or ruling, final or interlocutory, is far too overbroad. It's a breach of the separation of powers, among all the other things. That dog won't hunt.

You're full of shit. You want to favor the establishment of religion. That IS unconstutional.

GC and I rarely agree politically, but you are completely wrong here. She is not one of those moonbats who have climbed aboard the Islam bandwagon simply because the right loathe them. She is correct here. A participant in a trial is free to justify their actions for religious reasons, regardless of their religion. That doesn't mean a judge and or jury is bound to favor them.