Who could have predicted that it was unconstitutional (pdf) to ban courts from even considering Shariah Law? Oklahomans approved a ballot initiative to do just that with over 70% of the vote, even though there are no known examples of Oklahoma courts considering Shariah Law. There was no point to this exercise, which took up a considerable amount of the legislature’s time and became a serious topic of political debate and which forced Oklahoma voters to take a side.
Any moron could have predicted that the courts would find such a measure to violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. That’s because it’s illegal to pass laws that show preferential treatment to any particular religion. This initiative had nothing to say about Jewish Law or Christian Law.
Only a dumbass would possibly think this initiative would survive even the most cursory scrutiny. But this is the kind of time wasting conservatives love to wallow in so that they can pretend that they are legislating. Let’s repeal ObamaCare another 30 times while failing to pass any appropriations bills!!
These people are ruining a great country.
Although it unconstitutional to ban a court from considering Shariah Law, it is unconstitutional for a court to consider Shariah Law for the same reason!
Actually, it’s not. Considering foreign law or religious law can be done by a court. It’s a legal distinction that you read about in the ruling. “Considering” is not the same thing as “relying upon.”
Ruling based on a religious law would be a violation Church and State.
Do you honestly think a court ruling that women must wear a Burka because the Koran requires it would be constitutional?
That’s not what I mean. Here is language from the 10th Circuit decision:
Standards change. Not too long ago, courts thought gay marriage was absurd. However, when considering whether it was absurd or not, they could consider the laws of other nations. This kind of thing becomes an issue less when applying the law than when evaluating the law’s constitutionality. In considering a challenge to laws against polygamy, a judge can consider what the Koran has to say about it, or Mormon history. However, since polygamy is banned, the judge must convict those successfully prosecuted for the crime. They can’t invalidate a law unless they find it is unconstitutional.
Get it?
This reminds me of a Texas case that I read about, which some wingnut was citing as an actual instance of a US court applying Sharia law. A Muslim couple living in Texas had gotten divorced, and had agreed to have the divorce arbitrated by something called the Islamic Court of Texas. Which of course has no legal authority beyond what parties to arbitration agreements grant it themselves.
At any rate, one or the other of the partners appealed the decision, and the court basically held that they couldn’t back out of the arbitration agreement just because they didn’t like the outcome. So really the case was decided under the Texas arbitration law, not Sharia, but that might be a case where the court had a valid reason at least to consider Sharia.
How many of these idiots realize that Shari’ah law isn’t written down. What it is is a matter of opinion. Sort of like the endless debate (over hundreds of years) between rabbis (covering everything from how often a man should have sex with his wife to whether it’s better to be killed that to kill unjustly to how much one should charge for a pound of chicken) that is Talmudic law.
That’s distressing. Religion aside, until you actually sign an agreement you should always be able to cancel an arbitration and fight it out in court. The requirements to binding arbitration so many businesses make you sign are flat out oppressive.
I’m very sure the Texas voters took my interpretation of the amendment not yours. And in that case, as I implied, the amendment was unneeded.
On the subject of Sharia law, why oh why did Obama say, as I saw in a video clip, that Sharia law might be used in the United States? That was as tone-deaf as Bush calling our invasion of Iraq a Crusade.
Oklahomans approved a ballot initiative to do just that with over 70% of the vote, even though there are no known examples of Oklahoma courts considering Shariah Law.
This is so bad. What ever happened to the Democratic Party there? Oklahoma was once a Socialism hotbed, seriously.
Only until the white folks got them some of that socialism and the rules were changed to include people of color.
Two likely wingnut reactions:
I know these people, I tell you…
Well, personally I wouldn’t want to live under Mosaic Law either.
Mosaic law? Perhaps you mean Talmudic law, which is actually kind of cool in its breadth and scope. It’s all about what’s moral and what isn’t and it can be applied to anything.
Got say I disagree that it makes it cool. The more specific a religion is about daily conduct, the more trouble it’s adherents can stir up.
No, I mean the stuff in Deuteronomy and the other books attributed to Moses.
This failure is the best outcome for the professional hysteria industry. It will “prove” that the courts really do have an agenda to incorporate sharia law, and that they are willing to do so despite the democratically-expressed will of the people. I therefore wish there were to get rid of this stupidity other than judicial fiat.
It would be good for Obama to make clear that, because of the establishment clause, the US government cannot incorporate sharia “or any other religious law” because this is contrary to freedom. Use the anti-Islam fervor to reaffirm the secular nature of the country. It would be purely rhetorical, but this law was always rhetorical in intent, and this would move the conversation in a more useful direction.
Of course, Obama will not do this.
No, Obama won’t. He and his handlers subscribe to the idea that you don’t addressing the crazy people on the fringe because it only gives them momentum via publicity.
The problem is that the fringe is now the 30% of the populace. And they have their own media blowhorns that they listen to at the exclusion of everything else.
Personally I would argue that the Democrats need to attack each and every one of these fringe beliefs, and do it loud and do it frequently. Birthers, Obama-is-a-Muslim, income-taxes-are-up-under-Obama, etc. There are two benefits to doing this:
It would seem that all of your points depend on the media to actually do their job and call the crazy people, well…..CRAZY!! They also depend on people to recognize and respect “facts” as things that are important and relevant to them. Which, of course, has proven tremendously elusive and problematic for a very long time when it comes to right wing nuttiness.
I don’t think that is much on which a person can optimistically hang their hat.
A fair point, relying on the media is iffy at best.
But let’s look at the birther thing as an example. Donald Trump forced this to actually be discussed on cable news shows, previously it had basically been ignored. And every one of the non-Fox hosts who brought it up were incredulous that this was being raised seriously. (Of course, this was after Beck and Dobbs left CNN.) “Both the Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State of Hawaii have personally vouched for this birth certificate, and yet you still claim it is a forgery?”
What I’m saying is that the media can be manipulated to talk about a given topic and that if the topic is just too obvious they will call one side out. Of course, this isn’t always easy – the media utterly ignored Obama’s climate change speech, which shows who pulls their strings. But on the other hand they very much prefer stories which are: 1) easy and low cost to cover, 2) easy to explain, 3) provide good TV studio visuals, 4) can be extended indefinitely with a long stream of guests, and most importantly, 5) which really are just gossip. If the Democrats uniformly spend a week talking birther-birther-birther-birther, ideally with a couple of viral videos such as a Biden “gaffe”, the media will need to cover it – and in covering it will be forced to basically say that one side has an opinion but no facts.
Not guaranteeing this will work – we are talking about the Democrats, after all – but it’s worth a shot. I mean, it’s not like these stories aren’t already being talked about extensively among the true believers, so it’s not like bringing them up will make matters worse.
The other problem is there’s so much of it and it’s so crazy. I’m a political junkie and about a third of the time I have no idea what the righties are talking about, and new conspiracy theories pop up almost daily. Can anyone keep up? Can any individual message get through when you have to change it every few days?
It’s been 30% of the population for a very long time.
great topic 🙂 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mokoolapps.lizardspuzzles
No one could predict it! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mokoolapps.catpuzzles