International and Sharia Law- not OK.

[PoliticalChic]

Voters ban judges from using international law
Associated Press 31 Published: November 2, 2010


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.


Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."

Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.

Read more: Voters ban judges from using international law | NewsOK.com

So, wadda ya' think?

 

[Ravi]

I think it was stupid since the constitution already forbids it. But then again, it brought out the wingnut vote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think it was stupid since the constitution already forbids it. But then again, it brought out the wingnut vote.

"It is unfortunate that, in the recently decided case of Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States refers to international opinion against the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole as support for the Court's decision. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, in the Court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy clarifies and significantly restricts the Court's use of international opinion, at least in cases where the Court is involved in interpreting the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court explained that the judgments of other nations and the international community are not dispositive and are used only for support for the Court's own independent conclusion on the matter. No doubt, this evolution in the Court's approach disappoints those transnational progressives who had petitioned the Court to use international laws and practices to guide the Court's Eighth Amendment analysis, rather than to merely support a decision of the Court based exclusively on domestic laws and practices."
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Its Use of International Law Spotlight on Sovereignty Global Governance Watch
(emphasis mine)

As Wally points out in his Supreme Court/Kagan roundup, the Court did further damage to principled constitutional interpretation in citing foreign law as support for its holding that life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences are unconstitutional as applied to juveniles committing non-homicide crimes.
Today’s Other Big Bad Supreme Court Opinion | Cato @ Liberty


One should use more care in leaping to the use of 'stupid.'

 

[Ravi]

I think it was stupid since the constitution already forbids it. But then again, it brought out the wingnut vote.

"It is unfortunate that, in the recently decided case of Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States refers to international opinion against the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole as support for the Court's decision. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, in the Court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy clarifies and significantly restricts the Court's use of international opinion, at least in cases where the Court is involved in interpreting the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court explained that the judgments of other nations and the international community are not dispositive and are used only for support for the Court's own independent conclusion on the matter. No doubt, this evolution in the Court's approach disappoints those transnational progressives who had petitioned the Court to use international laws and practices to guide the Court's Eighth Amendment analysis, rather than to merely support a decision of the Court based exclusively on domestic laws and practices."
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Its Use of International Law Spotlight on Sovereignty Global Governance Watch
(emphasis mine)

As Wally points out in his Supreme Court/Kagan roundup, the Court did further damage to principled constitutional interpretation in citing foreign law as support for its holding that life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences are unconstitutional as applied to juveniles committing non-homicide crimes.
Today’s Other Big Bad Supreme Court Opinion | Cato @ Liberty


One should use more care in leaping to the use of 'stupid.'

Don't take it personally, PC, it wasn't aimed at you: that was just a bonus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think it was stupid since the constitution already forbids it. But then again, it brought out the wingnut vote.

"It is unfortunate that, in the recently decided case of Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States refers to international opinion against the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole as support for the Court's decision. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, in the Court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy clarifies and significantly restricts the Court's use of international opinion, at least in cases where the Court is involved in interpreting the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court explained that the judgments of other nations and the international community are not dispositive and are used only for support for the Court's own independent conclusion on the matter. No doubt, this evolution in the Court's approach disappoints those transnational progressives who had petitioned the Court to use international laws and practices to guide the Court's Eighth Amendment analysis, rather than to merely support a decision of the Court based exclusively on domestic laws and practices."
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Its Use of International Law Spotlight on Sovereignty Global Governance Watch
(emphasis mine)

As Wally points out in his Supreme Court/Kagan roundup, the Court did further damage to principled constitutional interpretation in citing foreign law as support for its holding that life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences are unconstitutional as applied to juveniles committing non-homicide crimes.
Today’s Other Big Bad Supreme Court Opinion | Cato @ Liberty


One should use more care in leaping to the use of 'stupid.'

Don't take it personally, PC, it wasn't aimed at you: that was just a bonus.

I really didn't think it was aimed at me, I was merely trying to address the civility of the comment. I had no prob with the rebuttal of the OP.

One of my wishes in the just-past election was that more thoughtful expositions came into practice...You know, the 'Restore Sanity' thing.

BTW, if your original post, "... since the constitution ..." was re: the United States Constitution, it should be capitalized. Otherwise, I might feel the need to go into one of my long rants about Progressives, Wilson, liberals, etc....

 

[Ravi]

"It is unfortunate that, in the recently decided case of Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States refers to international opinion against the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole as support for the Court's decision. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, in the Court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy clarifies and significantly restricts the Court's use of international opinion, at least in cases where the Court is involved in interpreting the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court explained that the judgments of other nations and the international community are not dispositive and are used only for support for the Court's own independent conclusion on the matter. No doubt, this evolution in the Court's approach disappoints those transnational progressives who had petitioned the Court to use international laws and practices to guide the Court's Eighth Amendment analysis, rather than to merely support a decision of the Court based exclusively on domestic laws and practices."
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Its Use of International Law Spotlight on Sovereignty Global Governance Watch
(emphasis mine)

As Wally points out in his Supreme Court/Kagan roundup, the Court did further damage to principled constitutional interpretation in citing foreign law as support for its holding that life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences are unconstitutional as applied to juveniles committing non-homicide crimes.
Today’s Other Big Bad Supreme Court Opinion | Cato @ Liberty


One should use more care in leaping to the use of 'stupid.'

Don't take it personally, PC, it wasn't aimed at you: that was just a bonus.

I really didn't think it was aimed at me, I was merely trying to address the civility of the comment. I had no prob with the rebuttal of the OP.

One of my wishes in the just-past election was that more thoughtful expositions came into practice...You know, the 'Restore Sanity' thing.

BTW, if your original post, "... since the constitution ..." was re: the United States Constitution, it should be capitalized. Otherwise, I might feel the need to go into one of my long rants about Progressives, Wilson, liberals, etc....

Just for you, my dear, I will capitalize it.

The US Constitution forbids Sharia law.

And on that, at least, we can agree is a good thing.

 

[California Girl]

Don't take it personally, PC, it wasn't aimed at you: that was just a bonus.

I really didn't think it was aimed at me, I was merely trying to address the civility of the comment. I had no prob with the rebuttal of the OP.

One of my wishes in the just-past election was that more thoughtful expositions came into practice...You know, the 'Restore Sanity' thing.

BTW, if your original post, "... since the constitution ..." was re: the United States Constitution, it should be capitalized. Otherwise, I might feel the need to go into one of my long rants about Progressives, Wilson, liberals, etc....

Just for you, my dear, I will capitalize it.

The US Constitution forbids Sharia law.

And on that, at least, we can agree is a good thing.

Since when has a little thing like the US Constitution got in the way of political correctness? Personally, I hope a lot more states jump on this. And then I'd quite like to the our SC cut the crap and just apply the damned document.

 

[Capitalist]

That’s odd, I thought CAIR didn’t want to see sharia law in America?
Muslims need to follow our laws or go elsewhere.
Multiculturalism is at work here. You can’t judge a culture because it would be ethnocentric to do so.

 

[Ravi]

I really didn't think it was aimed at me, I was merely trying to address the civility of the comment. I had no prob with the rebuttal of the OP.

One of my wishes in the just-past election was that more thoughtful expositions came into practice...You know, the 'Restore Sanity' thing.

BTW, if your original post, "... since the constitution ..." was re: the United States Constitution, it should be capitalized. Otherwise, I might feel the need to go into one of my long rants about Progressives, Wilson, liberals, etc....

Just for you, my dear, I will capitalize it.

The US Constitution forbids Sharia law.

And on that, at least, we can agree is a good thing.

Since when has a little thing like the US Constitution got in the way of political correctness? Personally, I hope a lot more states jump on this. And then I'd quite like to the our SC cut the crap and just apply the damned document.

If we have to make superfluous laws, the constitution looks weak, and the terrorists win.

But hey, anything to bash Muslims. I suppose we need one now to forbid Biblical law.