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

[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.

She's right and the judge is correct.

But I am all for banning all religion in courts.

You are not under Religious Law in any Court Sallow. You can come down from the ledge now. No Religious Dogma is a part of out Legal System. Value, Ideal, Principle, can be gleaned from religious teachings, and applied to common law through due process, like "Do Not Steal" "Do Not Kill", again principle is established into law through due process. Islam has witnessed the abuses to the Judicial System by the Left and wishes to imitate the process, circumventing the will of the Governed through Judicial Fiat and decree, ignoring statute and True intent. It seems also that your Religion is violating my Rights. You use what you believe to disarm safeguards Sallow, putting the Society at risk. Go ahead and continue supporting Justices handing out rulings based on Sharia Law while complaining about Christianity.

 

[Revere]

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.

Yes, and you can tell the judge a dog named Sam told you to kill. What does that prove?

 

[ConHog]

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.

Yes, and you can tell the judge a dog named Sam told you to kill. What does that prove?

Exactly nothing, and the Judge would treat it accordingly, just as he or she would if you told them God made you do it.

 

[Intense]

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.

This is where you are wrong ConHog, the Ruling is not about using Religion to justify action in one's defense, but to use Religion as a factor in the ruling. It is not for the Judges to Establish Precedent with Alien Law when it is in violation of Domestic Law. When there is a conflict between the two, We are a Nation of Laws. You are not exempt because of what you believe, you have a responsibility to live within the Law. If you do something by Sharia Law that hurts Somebody, and you are charged and in Court for the Offense, why should I give you a free pass? You are of course free to state your defense as you see fit, that may have no bearing on the Law or the Court. These Issues are abouit establishing Precedence, nothing more. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

 

[ConHog]

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.

This is where you are wrong ConHog, the Ruling is not about using Religion to justify action in one's defense, but to use Religion as a factor in the ruling. It is not for the Judges to Establish Precedent with Alien Law when it is in violation of Domestic Law. When there is a conflict between the two, We are a Nation of Laws. You are not exempt because of what you believe, you have a responsibility to live within the Law. If you do something by Sharia Law that hurts Somebody, and you are charged and in Court for the Offense, why should I give you a free pass? You are of course free to state your defense as you see fit, that may have no bearing on the Law or the Court. These Issues are abouit establishing Precedence, nothing more. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

There was no need for this Law to even be voted into place. There was especially no need for Sharia law to be mentioned specifically.

 

[Revere]

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.

Yes, and you can tell the judge a dog named Sam told you to kill. What does that prove?

Exactly nothing, and the Judge would treat it accordingly, just as he or she would if you told them God made you do it.

Know what case law is?

Case law concocted the phrase "separtion of church and state."

It wasn't in the Constitution or anywhere else before 1947.

 

[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.

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

Wow. That's the sloppiest straw man I've seen in a long time. Come back when you learn how to build one right, 'k?

 

[Revere]

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.

Wow. That's the sloppiest straw man I've seen in a long time. Come back when you learn how to build one right, 'k?

No, it's accurate. You want religious motivations to "mitigate" sentencing.

 

[Intense]

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.

This is where you are wrong ConHog, the Ruling is not about using Religion to justify action in one's defense, but to use Religion as a factor in the ruling. It is not for the Judges to Establish Precedent with Alien Law when it is in violation of Domestic Law. When there is a conflict between the two, We are a Nation of Laws. You are not exempt because of what you believe, you have a responsibility to live within the Law. If you do something by Sharia Law that hurts Somebody, and you are charged and in Court for the Offense, why should I give you a free pass? You are of course free to state your defense as you see fit, that may have no bearing on the Law or the Court. These Issues are abouit establishing Precedence, nothing more. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

There was no need for this Law to even be voted into place. There was especially no need for Sharia law to be mentioned specifically.

I don't think it's your place or mine, to circumvent the will of the People.

 

[Sallow]

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.

You are not under Religious Law in any Court Sallow. You can come down from the ledge now. No Religious Dogma is a part of out Legal System. Value, Ideal, Principle, can be gleaned from religious teachings, and applied to common law through due process, like "Do Not Steal" "Do Not Kill", again principle is established into law through due process. Islam has witnessed the abuses to the Judicial System by the Left and wishes to imitate the process, circumventing the will of the Governed through Judicial Fiat and decree, ignoring statute and True intent. It seems also that your Religion is violating my Rights. You use what you believe to disarm safeguards Sallow, putting the Society at risk. Go ahead and continue supporting Justices handing out rulings based on Sharia Law while complaining about Christianity.

Off the top of my head..I know that an "Act of God" has been used to excuse several events. And I have no religion..I don't believe in any form of superstition or higher powers. Religion, to me, is antiquated. And "supporting Justices handing out rulings based on Sharia Law..yadda yadda.." is hyperbole.

The US Constitution establishes that no religion will be advocated by the Government. That's fine. When you start doing things like singling out religions..in legislation...you violate that principle.

 

[Sallow]

This is where you are wrong ConHog, the Ruling is not about using Religion to justify action in one's defense, but to use Religion as a factor in the ruling. It is not for the Judges to Establish Precedent with Alien Law when it is in violation of Domestic Law. When there is a conflict between the two, We are a Nation of Laws. You are not exempt because of what you believe, you have a responsibility to live within the Law. If you do something by Sharia Law that hurts Somebody, and you are charged and in Court for the Offense, why should I give you a free pass? You are of course free to state your defense as you see fit, that may have no bearing on the Law or the Court. These Issues are abouit establishing Precedence, nothing more. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

There was no need for this Law to even be voted into place. There was especially no need for Sharia law to be mentioned specifically.

I don't think it's your place or mine, to circumvent the will of the People.

Sure there is.

As you guys keep gleefully pointing out..we live in a Republic.

Now we don't?

 

[goldcatt]

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.

This is where you are wrong ConHog, the Ruling is not about using Religion to justify action in one's defense, but to use Religion as a factor in the ruling. It is not for the Judges to Establish Precedent with Alien Law when it is in violation of Domestic Law. When there is a conflict between the two, We are a Nation of Laws. You are not exempt because of what you believe, you have a responsibility to live within the Law. If you do something by Sharia Law that hurts Somebody, and you are charged and in Court for the Offense, why should I give you a free pass? You are of course free to state your defense as you see fit, that may have no bearing on the Law or the Court. These Issues are abouit establishing Precedence, nothing more. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Here's where the OK law is overbroad, and fails even if it got past the Establishment hurdle.

While no law other than the law of the jurisdiction will be applied by the judge to make a ruling, if religious law is brought in as an argument and is pertinent to the case it can be considered as evidence in order to reach a ruling under the law of the jurisdiction. Such as the fact that a criminal defendant is a believer in sharia law - this fact and details pertinent to the case at hand may be brought in by either side to prove or attempt to prove elements of a crime or of a defense, or as a factor in sentencing.

Go back and read the text of the provision as kwc posted it, it states that the courts may not consider sharia law in any ruing. It does not say it cannot "apply" it to determine the outcome of a case or interlocutory ruling, which would already be against the law. It says it may not be considered, period. That's overbroad in that it rules out any consideration of sharia where it could in fact be germane to the case and fit the rules of evidence.

It would also be the Legislature telling the Courts what types of cases and defenses it may and may not allow beyond the established rules of evidence and the due process required for the forum, which is a clear violation of the separation of powers.

And that doesn't address the use of international law in cases of first impression, where routinely it has been considered by courts at all levels, for ideas about what's out there to resolve an issue for which there is no already determined law. Outlawing the review and consideration of international law in such cases and forcing each court faced with the situation to completely reinvent the wheel would be plain foolhardy.

 

[Intense]

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

Wow. That's the sloppiest straw man I've seen in a long time. Come back when you learn how to build one right, 'k?

No, it's accurate. You want religious motivations to "mitigate" sentencing.

One thing I'm real tired of is the Courts mandating shit out of their ass, contrary to established law and misappropriating Precedent in the miscarriage of justice, then telling us there is nothing we can do about it. Fuck the Oligarchy. Either perform your duties competently, or get off of the fucking bench. Jefferson nailed the problems with these bastards so so well.

 

[ConHog]

This is where you are wrong ConHog, the Ruling is not about using Religion to justify action in one's defense, but to use Religion as a factor in the ruling. It is not for the Judges to Establish Precedent with Alien Law when it is in violation of Domestic Law. When there is a conflict between the two, We are a Nation of Laws. You are not exempt because of what you believe, you have a responsibility to live within the Law. If you do something by Sharia Law that hurts Somebody, and you are charged and in Court for the Offense, why should I give you a free pass? You are of course free to state your defense as you see fit, that may have no bearing on the Law or the Court. These Issues are abouit establishing Precedence, nothing more. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

There was no need for this Law to even be voted into place. There was especially no need for Sharia law to be mentioned specifically.

I don't think it's your place or mine, to circumvent the will of the People.

No, but it IS the place of the judicial branch of our government to circumvent the will of the people when that will runs contrary to our laws.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, and you can tell the judge a dog named Sam told you to kill. What does that prove?

Exactly nothing, and the Judge would treat it accordingly, just as he or she would if you told them God made you do it.

Know what case law is?

Case law concocted the phrase "separtion of church and state."

It wasn't in the Constitution or anywhere else before 1947.

CH is right, and you're the one who obviously knows nothing about the law. But keep building your pathetic straw men, maybe you'll be able to knock one of THOSE down and feel all manly keyboard commando and stuff. Maybe.

 

[goldcatt]

Wow. That's the sloppiest straw man I've seen in a long time. Come back when you learn how to build one right, 'k?

No, it's accurate. You want religious motivations to "mitigate" sentencing.

One thing I'm real tired of is the Courts mandating shit out of their ass, contrary to established law and misappropriating Precedent in the miscarriage of justice, then telling us there is nothing we can do about it. Fuck the Oligarchy. Either perform your duties competently, or get off of the fucking bench. Jefferson nailed the problems with these bastards so so well.

The problem is complex. But mitigation and sentencing are, of course, two different things.

Mitigation is an affirmative defense written into the law allowing for the mental state to be dropped to a lower level, usually changing the crime to one you would consider "lesser included" in the process. For certain crimes there are exemptions or exceptions written into the statues the Legislature passes allowing for mitigation on religious grounds. One example would be criminal charges against a parent for failing to secure medical treatment for a gravely ill child. There are others, but you get the idea. It's that old tension between Establishment and Free Exercise.

 

[Intense]

"The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the
morals of the people and every blessing of society depend so much
upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the
judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and
executive and independent upon both, that so it may be a check
upon both, as both should be checks upon that." --Thomas Jefferson
to George Wythe, 1776.

"The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body,
like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming
advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is
engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of
that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821.

"A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good
thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism,
at least in a republican government." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas
Ritchie, 1820.

"It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a
branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1821.

Favorite Jefferson Quotes

 

[Intense]

"Justice is the fundamental law of society." --Thomas Jefferson
to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and
impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's, "Political Economy," 1816.

"It is the will of the nation which makes the law obligatory; it
is their will which vacates or annihilates the organ which is to
declare and announce it." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph,
1799.

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to
Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is
fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807.

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by
individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to Col. Vanneter, 1781.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the
high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The
laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country
when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country
by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law
itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are
enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the
means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.

"No nation however powerful, any more than an individual, can
be unjust with impunity. Sooner or later, public opinion, an
instrument merely moral in the beginning, will find occasion
physically to inflict its sentences on the unjust... The lesson
is useful to the weak as well as the strong." --Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison, 1804.

Favorite Jefferson Quotes

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, and you can tell the judge a dog named Sam told you to kill. What does that prove?

Exactly nothing, and the Judge would treat it accordingly, just as he or she would if you told them God made you do it.

Know what case law is?

Case law concocted the phrase "separtion of church and state."

It wasn't in the Constitution or anywhere else before 1947.

Do YOU know what case law is and what it means? Do you understand the hierarchy of laws in a common law legal system, the proper use of that case law and the process by which those cases are decided?

Better to be quiet and have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, son.