| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: WoT | ||
| Judge blocks Oklahoma ban on sharia law | ||
| 2010-11-09 | ||
| Voters in the state backed a measure to bar the use of Islamic and international law by 70 per cent to 30 per cent, in a referendum held on the same day as the US midterm elections. However Muneer Awad, the head of the regional branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, promptly filed a lawsuit against it. Mr Awad argued that the measure violated the right to religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. "Islam was the target of this amendment," Mr Awad said. "This amendment does not have a secular purpose." Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange granted a temporary restraining order against the measure, in advance of a hearing on November 22.
Mr Duncan said that Judge LaGrange's verdict "thwarts the will of the people". However legal experts have questioned whether the measure is necessary, given that there is no apparent danger of foreign law becoming binding on the state. Joseph Thai, a professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Law, described it as "an answer in search of a problem".
| ||
| Posted by:tipper |
| #5 "given that there is no apparent danger of foreign law becoming binding on the state" I beg to differ. In Germany courts have already accepted certain Sharia regulations. For example a judge ruled that the first wife of a Muslim living in Germany had to share her pension with the other wives of her husband thus accepting polygamy, which is legal in Muslim states but not in Germany. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2010-11-09 19:49 |
| #4 she's a Clinton appointee. Natch |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-11-09 19:41 |
| #3 Again, a great pitch for there being a Second Court of the United States, composed of 100 State judges appointed by the State legislatures. Located between the SCOTUS and the federal District Courts, they would not be a federal court, and would not determine if something was constitutional. Their purpose would be to balance the federal judiciary, by taking State cases, improperly taken by federal judges, out of the hands of federal judges, and returning them to the States. In this case, if other States backed Oklahoma in this action, Oklahoma would have a law its people wanted, even though a federal judge didn't like it. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-11-09 18:27 |
| #2 They also like to scream separation of church and state, unless it's muslims. Then the state can support them all they want. People are really getting fed up with this crap. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2010-11-09 18:16 |
| #1 Judges have entirely too much power and not enough accountability. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2010-11-09 16:40 |