Judge Draws Ire in Suspending Oklahoma Sharia Ban

[FrankRep]

http://www.kochsoft.com/tna/logo.png (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
The New American Magazine on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-New-American-Magazine/146909368666979)



Two days after Oklahomans voted in the mid-terms to ban Islamic, or Sharia, law from state courtrooms, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it would file suit. by Kelly Holt


Judge Draws Ire in Suspending Oklahoma Sharia Ban (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5146-judge-draws-ire-in-suspending-oklahoma-sharia-ban)


Kelly Holt | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
09 November 2010


Two days after Oklahomans voted in the mid-terms to ban Islamic, or Sharia, law from state courtrooms, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it would file suit. Said suit was filed on Thursday, and on Monday, Fox News reported a prominent Muslim had won a temporary restraining order (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/oklahomas-ban-shariah-law-blocked-critics-say-attorney-general-failed-respond/) in federal court.

The measure, passed by approximately 70 percent of Oklahoma’s voters, would require courts to rely on federal and state law, and not international or Sharia law. The New American asserted on November 5 that Oklahomans were responding to instances in England, and one case in New Jersey, in which Sharia creep had caused unfavorable rulings. Louisiana and Maryland courts (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4342-states-take-preemptive-strike-against-shariah) also heard cases involving Sharia tenets. Sooner Staters interpreted the measure as a preventive (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5097-oklahoma-bans-sharia-law-from-courts-cair-files-suit) one against similar developments in their own state.

Sharia (meaning “path”) law, found in the Koran is the basis of law in most Islamic countries, and its implementation has been used to condone harsh punishments such as stoning, the amputation of a hand for stealing, or caning of a rape victim.

But, after Monday’s ruling, State Senator Anthony Sykes, co-author of the bill and State Representative Rex Duncan, a cosponsor, were quick to criticize the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange, and the State Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

The result of LeGrange’s ruling would place Oklahoma’s ban in suspension until a hearing on November 22. The judge will then hear arguments on whether the temporary injunction should become permanent.

Sykes said the judge ruled as she did because Attorney General Edmondson failed to respond to the suit. “The attorney general failed to file a response. I am afraid that this might get written in stone that shouldn’t be because the attorney general is leaving and a new one is coming in.”

Duncan said he was disappointed that the judge’s “words from the bench indicated she had completely embraced the plaintiff’s arguments. They were pretty extraordinary statements from the judge.”

The plaintiff, CAIR executive director Muneer Awad, claimed the law violates his constitutional rights, and he said, “Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities. We are humbled by this opportunity to show our fellow Oklahomans that Muslims are their neighbors and that we are committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and promoting the benefits of a pluralistic society." How the implementation of Sharia law in opposition to U.S. law upholds the Constitution was not addressed in his statement.

Some have noted the irony in Awad using the U.S. legal system and rights to forward the Muslim agenda and diminish the very system of fairness that he is relying on.

Both Sykes and Duncan believe the state should have challenged whether Awad even had the standing to bring the case. Duncan said, “As far as we know, he flew into here from Georgia just to make the case. We don’t think he is an Oklahoma resident or plans to stay. We don’t think he had standing.”

Duncan continued, "While Oklahoma is still able to defend itself against this sort of hideous invasion, we should do so."

Duncan, and other opponents believe that allowing Sharia law to supersede federal or state law will deny certain constitutionally guaranteed rights to Americans. Rights such as due process, or equality for wives within marriage. Sharia law is not compatible with order and liberty as Americans have come to know it under constitutional law.

Oklahoma’s battle to govern itself as it sees fit may not be the last fight we see. As more Muslims come to reside in America, we can expect to have to do battle for processes that may appear to be obvious. Some who anticipate these kinds of problems are finding hope in the idea of nullification, and invoking the Tenth Amendment rights guaranteed to states in the supreme law of the land.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5146-judge-draws-ire-in-suspending-oklahoma-sharia-ban


Related Articles:

Oklahoma Offensive Surges Ahead (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5144-oklahoma-offensive-surges-ahead)

Oklahoma Bans Sharia Law from Courts; CAIR Files Suit (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5097-oklahoma-bans-sharia-law-from-courts-cair-files-suit)

States Take Preemptive Strike Against Sharia Law (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4342-states-take-preemptive-strike-against-shariah)

Oklahoma Lawmakers Resist Using Sharia (Islamic law) in Court (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3751-oklahoma-lawmakers-resist-using-sharia-in-court)

Oklahoma Offensive: Restoring Good Government (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3047-oklahoma-offensive)

[JustinTime]

It shouldnt be in courtrooms, saying so isnt discrimination. The fact that this is so troubling to so many people is a sign the end of the west is nigh, run for the hills.

[FrankRep]

Vicki Miles-LaGrange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/LaGrange.jpg/90px-LaGrange.jpg


Vicki Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President William J. Clinton on September 22, 1994, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma vacated by Lee Roy West.


Bill Clinton strikes again!

[lynnf]

Vicki Miles-LaGrange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/LaGrange.jpg/90px-LaGrange.jpg


Vicki Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President William J. Clinton on September 22, 1994, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma vacated by Lee Roy West.


Bill Clinton strikes again!

this explains a helluva lot!

lynn

[Zippyjuan]

Does Oklahoma actually have Sharia law to ban in the first place? Can you take somebody to court there and prosecute them under it? Or is this just all fluff?

[FrankRep]

Does Oklahoma actually have Sharia law to ban in the first place? Can you take somebody to court there and prosecute them under it? Or is this just all fluff?

Britain already has Sharia Law courts. Oklahoma is preemptively addressing the problem before it starts.


Sharia courts have been operating in Britain to rule on disputes between Muslims for more than a year, it has emerged. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html)

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html)

[Zippyjuan]

I see. So Oklamoma is afraid of Muslims.

[FrankRep]

I see. So Oklamoma is afraid of Muslims.
Oklahoma courts should only enforce Oklahoma Law. What's wrong with that?

[Vessol]

Does Oklahoma actually have Sharia law to ban in the first place? Can you take somebody to court there and prosecute them under it? Or is this just all fluff?

This. How can you ban something that isn't in practice?

This is like trying to ban Klingon law.

[reillym]

Britain already has Sharia Law courts. Oklahoma is preemptively addressing the problem before it starts.


Sharia courts have been operating in Britain to rule on disputes between Muslims for more than a year, it has emerged. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html)

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html)

yeah, thost muslims are all out to get us! Run for the hills!!!

Read the damn article.



The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts

This entire thing is a non issue and founded on racism and ignorance.

[FrankRep]

This. How can you ban something that isn't in practice?

70% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5097-oklahoma-bans-sharia-law-from-courts-cair-files-suit) of the Voters in Oklahoma disagree with you.

[FrankRep]

This entire thing is a non issue and founded on racism and ignorance.

Blocking Sharia Law isn't racist. Silly comment.

[Vessol]

70% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5097-oklahoma-bans-sharia-law-from-courts-cair-files-suit) of the Voters in Oklahoma disagree with you.

Last I checked, we lived in a Republic, not a Democracy.

YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

[FrankRep]

Last I checked, we lived in a Republic, not a Democracy.

Last time I checked that applied to the United States government, not the States.

What's wrong with Oklahoma courts only enforcing Oklahoma Law?

[Vessol]

There's nothing wrong with enforcing Oklahoma Law.

It just seems a silly waste of time and money to ban something that isn't in place to begin with. Not to mention that this whole silly thing is arising because of neocon fear of "dem dirty muslims gonna be takin over Americas!"

Why don't they ban Klingon law as well? There's just as much chance of a bunch of Trekkies all moving to Oklahoma and taking it over and enforcing Klingon law, as there is radical muslims.

[FrankRep]

There's nothing wrong with enforcing Oklahoma Law.
Thank you.


It just seems a silly waste of time and money to ban something that isn't in place to begin with.
Waste of money? This bill also banned International Law from being enforced in Oklahoma courts as well. That was it's main focus. Blocking International Law isn't a waste of money and I doubt a lot of money was spent anyway.


Not to mention that this whole silly thing is arising because of neocon fear of "dem dirty muslims gonna be takin over Americas!"

More than just the Liberal Neocons support blocking Sharia Law from being enforced in courts. Like I said before, Oklahoma courts should only enforce Oklahoma Law. What's wrong with that?



Why don't they ban Klingon law as well? There's just as much chance of a bunch of Trekkies all moving to Oklahoma and taking it over and enforcing Klingon law, as there is radical muslims.

People are allowed to vote to block Klingon Law in courts as well. People obviously see International Law and Sharia Law as a bigger than Klingon Law.

[LibertyVox]

Britain already has Sharia Law courts. Oklahoma is preemptively addressing the problem before it starts.


Sharia courts have been operating in Britain to rule on disputes between Muslims for more than a year, it has emerged. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html)

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html)

Right Frank.
http://www2.ivcc.edu/rambo/eng1001/CopyofMunchScream.jpg

You DO know that aspects of Sharia law for the Muslim populace in cases of family and inheritance arbitration has been operating in Britain for over a quarter century, don't you?

You do know that the recent hysteria in the US spearheaded by dull bigots by twisting and lying about a bogeyman is nothing but bullying and fear and hate monegring since the recent talk of expanding role of Islamic courts of the Muslim populace was supported by the Archbishop of the Anglican church?
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/07/religion.world)

You do know that the reason this question came up was because British Jurisprudence already allows for religious minorities to use aspects of their own religious laws which are not in conflict with the law of the land?


You do know the question came up because similar Jewish courts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm) have been active in Britain for over a century? Hence the equal application clause.

You do know that this proposal by the archbishop was unpopular among British Muslims due to various reasons (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/825601/our-survey-shows-british-muslims-dont-want-sharia.thtml) including possible needless waste of public money?

[Dr.3D]

There's nothing wrong with enforcing Oklahoma Law.

It just seems a silly waste of time and money to ban something that isn't in place to begin with. Not to mention that this whole silly thing is arising because of neocon fear of "dem dirty muslims gonna be takin over Americas!"

Why don't they ban Klingon law as well? There's just as much chance of a bunch of Trekkies all moving to Oklahoma and taking it over and enforcing Klingon law, as there is radical muslims.



I'm pretty sure the same argument was used in Britain too. If you suspect something is coming down the pike, you move to avoid it, you don't just stand there and let it hit you.

[LibertyVox]

And the national decay continues....
And it wasn't a foreign enemy or the illegal immigrants.

:p

[FrankRep]

And the national decay continues....
And it wasn't a foreign enemy or the illegal immigrants.

The STATES are taking their Power Back from the Federal Government. You see this as a bad thing?

[Dr.3D]

The STATES are taking their Power Back from the Federal Government. You see this as a bad thing?

Apparently some do if it conflicts with their agenda.

[oyarde]

This. How can you ban something that isn't in practice?

This is like trying to ban Klingon law.

Klingons are next .

[Dr.3D]

Klingons are next .
Only if they come to this country and start trying to change it's justice system.

[FrankRep]

Klingons are next .
What's wrong with Oklahoma courts only enforcing Oklahoma Law? The bill also banned International Law.

[LibertyVox]

Oh look ol' King George is smiling again at the upstart ex-colonials!

Britain Prevails!

http://www.yessirnigel.com/george_third.jpg

[oyarde]

I think Lousiana has done this . I think what it is really about is restricting judges . I see nothing wrong with that .

[Dr.3D]

Oh look ol' King George is smiling again at the upstart ex-colonials!

Britain Prevails!



Britain failed, they have to suffer along with perversions to their justice system.

[wormyguy]

This law means that people can no longer use alternative means of arbitration agreed to by both parties. That's an anti-libertarian position.

[nate895]

yeah, thost muslims are all out to get us! Run for the hills!!!

Says the guys who thinks Christians are out to get us.

[LibertyVox]

The STATES are taking their Power Back from the Federal Government. You see this as a bad thing?

Oh come now my dear Frank. I would never be one against devolution of a centralized juggernaut. I am just bummed out the social devolution. I have a right to enjoy me life still when I'm proper young don't I?

So go ahead and roll another one from the New American, while I fight the impulse to acknowledge that this country has long peaked.

[FrankRep]

This law means that people can no longer use alternative means of arbitration agreed to by both parties. That's an anti-libertarian position.
No, it means Oklahoma courts must enforce Oklahoma Law.

Your "alternative means" can exist outside of the court system.

[wormyguy]

No, it means Oklahoma courts must enforce Oklahoma Law.

Your "alternative means" can exist outside of the court system.
So you think that people should have to abide by whatever fascist rulings the state courts might provide, even if neither party in a case wants to use state law?

[FrankRep]

So you think that people should have to abide by whatever fascist rulings the state courts might provide, even if neither party in a case wants to use state law?
Both parties can handle their dispute outside of court.
Plus, calling state courts "fascist" is silly.

[wormyguy]

Both parties can handle their dispute outside of court.

They can't if it's a criminal case.


Plus, calling state courts "fascist" is silly.

They are fascist.

[nate895]

They are fascist.

That's called "poisoning the well".

[FrankRep]

Both parties can handle their dispute outside of court.


They can't if it's a criminal case.

I don't support Anarchy. If you commit a crime, you will be punished according to law. If you disagree with a certain law, get it repealed.

[james1906]

I think most Okies want to publicly stone the Sooners for what happened Saturday.

[wormyguy]

I don't support Anarchy. If you commit a crime, you will be punished according to law. If you disagree with a certain law, get it repealed.
I hate to use Godwin, but this is an appropriate instance. If Adolf Hitler makes it a crime to be of Jewish descent, that's just a-okay, and the only recourse allowed to anyone charged under that law is to "get it repealed?"

[FrankRep]

I hate to use Godwin, but this is an appropriate instance. If Adolf Hitler makes it a crime to be of Jewish descent, that's just a-okay, and the only recourse allowed to anyone charged under that law is to "get it repealed?"
First, Adolf Hitler was AGAINST States' Rights. Second, this is about banning International Law and Sharia Law from Oklahoma courts.

Your Hitler card doesn't apply. Shame on you.

[wormyguy]

First, Adolf Hitler was AGAINST States' Rights.

Non-sequitur, that's missing my point entirely. States don't have [natural] rights, people have rights. This resolution takes away peoples' [natural] rights.


Second, this is about banning International Law and Sharia Law from Oklahoma courts.

And why should two consenting adults be prevented from resolving a dispute using any rules they like?


Your Hitler card doesn't apply. Shame on you.

Of course it applies. You seem to think that any law is just fine so long as it is enforced at the state level, and that the only recourse people should be allowed from it is to "get it repealed." So, if Gov. Hitler signs a law saying that it's a crime to be of Jewish descent, under penalty of death, your response is that all they can do is attempt to "get it repealed?" It's a yes or no question. Yes or no?

[Theocrat]

After reading some of the comments in this thread, I am convinced that many of you have fallen for the error of multiculturalism in America. By the way, how is that going in Germany (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1018/1224281341024.html)?

[Vessol]

After reading some of the comments in this thread, I am convinced that many of you have fallen for the error of multiculturalism in America. By the way, how is that going in Germany (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1018/1224281341024.html)?

Says the guy who wants to murder homosexuals.

[Theocrat]

Says the guy who wants to murder homosexuals.

If you're going to get on my views, then at least get them right. I do not want to murder homosexuals. Besides, that is a red herring and a personal attack, both of which have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

[LibertyVox]

After reading some of the comments in this thread, I am convinced that many of you have fallen for the error of multiculturalism in America. By the way, how is that going in Germany (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1018/1224281341024.html)?

I am glad you said error of multiculturalism with respect to America.

There was no issue, until it was built in the first place.

Personally I could care less. If anything, it gives one material for amusement, (until the mob comes carrying torches and rakes of course) watching all the puny little theos goin at each other.

So which end is the right end for crackin' the egg?

[FrankRep]

Non-sequitur, that's missing my point entirely. States don't have [natural] rights, people have rights. This resolution takes away peoples' [natural] rights.
This bill only affected Oklahoma courts, not your natural rights.


And why should two consenting adults be prevented from resolving a dispute using any rules they like?
Two consenting adults can handle their dispute outside of court anyway they wish.



You seem to think that any law is just fine so long as it is enforced at the state level, and that the only recourse people should be allowed from it is to "get it repealed." So, if Gov. Hitler signs a law saying that it's a crime to be of Jewish descent, under penalty of death, your response is that all they can do is attempt to "get it repealed?" It's a yes or no question. Yes or no?


All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
- Edmund Burke

I never said "any law is just fine." Bad laws need to repealed. If the Governor or State Reps pass bad laws, it's your duty to kick those people out of office to elect good and moral representatives.


Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

If immoral people elect immoral leaders the system will collapse into a dictatorship or worse.

[LibertyVox]

Colbert report on the topic at hand. Funny.


http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/364378/november-03-2010/stephen-colbert-gives-you-props

[Pericles]

This. How can you ban something that isn't in practice?

This is like trying to ban Klingon law.

Consider it like private arbitration. If one of the parties disagrees, he can go to court and then common law applies (which should have been, but is not always the basis for the decision in arbitration).

Under the same principle, OK is saying if a party brings a dispute to court, any decision of a private entity (in this case Sharia based) has no bearing and the case is tried de novo.

[angelatc]

.


This bill also banned International Law from being enforced in Oklahoma courts as well. That was it's main focus.

Really? Why doesn't the title of your thread indicate that?

[FrankRep]

Really? Why doesn't the title of your thread indicate that?

If you have actually read the article you would have seen this:

The measure, passed by approximately 70 percent of Oklahoma’s voters, would require courts to rely on federal and state law, and not international or Sharia law.

[silentshout]

After reading some of the comments in this thread, I am convinced that many of you have fallen for the error of multiculturalism in America. By the way, how is that going in Germany (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1018/1224281341024.html)?

My family is multicultural. We are doing just fine. thanks for your concern.

[BlackTerrel]

This. How can you ban something that isn't in practice?

This is like trying to ban Klingon law.

Apparently the people of Oklahoma disagree. But this one judge says their vote is meaningless and they can shut the fuck up and do as they're told.

How is it liberty when one judge tells 70% of Oklahomans to take their vote and shove it?