November 30, 2010

Oklahoma Anti-Sharia Law Update
— Gabriel Malor

Yesterday afternoon, the U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction that enjoins the State of Oklahoma from certifying the election results in State Question 755, the "Save Our State Amendment." SQ 755 would ban Oklahoma courts from using international or Sharia law in making decisions. It passed with 70% of the vote.

From the decision (PDF):

This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country’s history, the will of the “majority” has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals, an occurrence which our founders foresaw and provided for through the Bill of Rights. As the United States Supreme Court has stated:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

[...]

Having carefully reviewed the briefs on this issue, and having heard the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds that entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from certifying the election results for State Question 755 would not be adverse to the public interest. While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.

The preliminary injunction will be in force until the judge rules on the merits of the lawsuit, but having already analyzed the constitutional issues, I don't suppose that will take too long and we know which way it will shake out.

My own view is that the judge's order seriously misconstrues the law of standing, which requires a litigant to have a sufficient injury which can be redressed by the court. The court essentially bought the CAIR plaintiff's argument that the Oklahoma amendment would interfere with his free exercise of religion. She credited, among other dubious ideas, the plaintiff's testimony that Sharia law is not law, but rather a religious practice.

As I mentioned on the Pat Campbell Radio Show, if it were true that Sharia law is a religious practice and not law then the First and Fourteenth Amendments would already prevent Oklahoma courts (and all other state courts) from using it. The plaintiff's argument contradicts what he claims is a goal of his lawsuit: to have his will probated under Sharia law. Nevertheless, Judge Miles-LaGrange ate it up.

Expect the Tenth Circuit to spit this one back.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:32 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Expect Sharia to supplement the Constitution in 20 years. Our judicial system is populated by asshat hacks.

Posted by: ken at November 30, 2010 02:39 AM (HBnRn)

2 The Judiciary branch.  I say we nuke it into space...it's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: Tami at November 30, 2010 02:40 AM (VuLos)

3 Having carefully reviewed the briefs on this issue, and having heard the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds that entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from certifying the election results for State Question 755 would not be adverse to the public interest.

That pretty much tells you how she will rule. IIANM they must have a more than reasonable belief that the plaintiff will prevail in order to issue an injunction.

As for the legal theory here the judge is either a lying asshole or stupid. I go for lying asshole since she is a Clinton appointee. However, it is a tossup on stupid because she is also an AA appointee.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2010 02:47 AM (e4sSD)

4 This should make a good proposal for the new Republican Congress.

Impeach EVERY federal judge appointed by a Democrat. t may get a few good ones (rare) but it would improve the bench considerably.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2010 02:56 AM (e4sSD)

5 Kill 3000 Americans,
gain protected status.
Problem?

Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2010 03:02 AM (w7Lv+)

6 This decision has to be shot down eventually since Sharia doesn't offer what US law and constitution considers "equal protection" or "due process" to women.

The judge should be removed for making this kind of retarded ruling.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 30, 2010 03:04 AM (wkiTR)

7 While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.


So long as "the system" permits a single uneleceted individual to throw out a law passed by a whopping 70% majority, and then redefine the public interestest in this high-handed fashion, we are f*cking serfs, nothing more.  Sure the decision is ridiculous, but the system that barfs up decisions like this, routinely, is dangerous.

Posted by: louis tully at November 30, 2010 03:08 AM (BZEkR)

8

Judge Miles-LaGrange has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

Give the judge a big 'fuck you' and certify the results. The states are going to have to seize power back from the federal government by disobeying federal courts that are clearly doing whatever they want.

 

 

Posted by: Joy Behar at November 30, 2010 03:21 AM (X1Y8q)

9 Judge Miles-LaGrange has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

Not a "he"

http://tinyurl.com/27vlsus

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2010 03:23 AM (e4sSD)

10 If the people vote on something we think is stupid, we will now just rule that the election could not have happened.

Posted by: federal judges at November 30, 2010 03:44 AM (c7Pp2)

11

This disregard by federal judges of the will of the people has got to stop.  The people respect the law and work within it, and pass (overwhelmingly) these ballot questions.  Then some single solitary judge decides it offends her and tosses it out.   Enough already!

Posted by: Boots at November 30, 2010 04:26 AM (neKzn)

12 #8---

How I wish we had more Andrew Jacksons in government now---

C'mon, Oklahoma...tell that judge to st*ff it and certify!!!!


Posted by: Double Ply at November 30, 2010 04:30 AM (ezdtY)

13 It is in the public interest to ignore what the public is interested in. If only the rubes understood the depth of our intellect, we could get on with Ruling instead of just ruling.

Posted by: federal judges at November 30, 2010 04:37 AM (c7Pp2)

14 Of COURSE Sharia is a relgious practice!  I mean what else do you call it when ALLAH commands you to beat the shit out of your wife and murder your daughter for checkin' out some white dude you don't like?

Posted by: Robert at November 30, 2010 04:37 AM (fG88N)

15 Oh shoot, I said ALLAH's name without adding the sacred phrase, PBUH, which believe means peanut butter upon him.

Posted by: Robert at November 30, 2010 04:39 AM (fG88N)

16

I want to know why we allow Federal judges to rule on the constitutionality of anything.

They should not be permitted to consider the Constitution in their rulings.  If you want to argue constitutionality, then appeal it to the circuits.

Declaring a law unconstitutional should be rare because there should be no question that a law passed is unconstitutional.  It should be obvious once it's passed.  Instead, it's de rigieur and we have come to expect that any sufficiently controversial law will be declared unconstitutional by a liberal federal judge. 

Funny how a judge appointed by Clinton in 1994 gets to sit on this case.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 04:48 AM (BvBKY)

17 Prop H8 in Kahleeforneeha gets heard in Dec by 3 judge 9th circuit panel... Reinhart is the closer for the commie rats.

Posted by: torabora at November 30, 2010 04:50 AM (aoXp4)

18

When we get all talked out and get down to fighting about who gets what we get the stars and stripes...they get that rainbow flag.

Someone ought to photoshoot "The 1st San Francisco Butt Rangers"

*cue Marvin Gaye"

Posted by: torabora at November 30, 2010 04:57 AM (aoXp4)

19 Killing infidels is cool. The 'K' in Koran is for killing infidels and unruly spouses and daughters.

Posted by: Koranic Scholar at November 30, 2010 05:04 AM (aoXp4)

20

 However, it is a tossup on stupid because she is also an AA appointee.
Vic at November 30, 2010 07:47 AM (e4sSD)

Dude, we have enough we can argue about with this judge without bringing race into it.  This is why the left and the media (but I repeat myself) say that all conservatives are racists. 

Posted by: DougV at November 30, 2010 05:21 AM (EXsuU)

21 We need the law because of this shit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smw9QuH1xkA

Posted by: Rob in Katy at November 30, 2010 05:24 AM (gdGJ1)

22

What's with the injunction against certifying the results? I can see an argument that the state amendment would be a violation of the federal constitution (though I don't agree that it is) that would require a stay of its implementation. But denying the certification is like trying to pretend that the election didn't happen.

I agree with the previous comment that it's time for states to start asserting themselves against federal courts. Certify away!

Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 30, 2010 05:26 AM (7EV/g)

23 Dude, we have enough we can argue about with this judge without bringing race into it.

Not race, AA. When you turn opposition to AA into an argument about race you automatically surrender to the left.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2010 05:32 AM (e4sSD)

24 Britain is already seeing the results of allowing the Sharia bullshit to have any legal standing.  The absolute tyranny of the muslim family patriarch is the inevitable result, and all the abuse and horror that comes with it.  If we can't do the right thing and deport the muslim scum, we should, at the very least, make it clear that their vile beliefs hold no power in this land.  And any of them who try to carry out such barbarism in the shaddows should be hunted down and punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Posted by: Reactionary at November 30, 2010 05:48 AM (xUM1Q)

25

What's with the injunction against certifying the results? I can see an argument that the state amendment would be a violation of the federal constitution (though I don't agree that it is) that would require a stay of its implementation. But denying the certification is like trying to pretend that the election didn't happen.

Agreed. This is a really weird way of getting the result they want.

Posted by: DamnLawyer at November 30, 2010 05:55 AM (eJSxA)

26

Gabe, good assessment.  The lawsuit is circuitous in that the constitution stands against the points being made by plaintiff,correct.   However, one could also assert the same for the Oklahoma law given the fact the constitution is explicit in this area with supporting case law as respects the charge of the court and the dispositive nature of the constitution and developed case law.

Seems like everyone on this issue in Oklahoma is talking in circles.  

Posted by: journolist at November 30, 2010 05:59 AM (LwLqV)

27 Fucking hyphenated judge says it all.  Might as well be Judge Mohammed-Mohammed.

Posted by: TexBob at November 30, 2010 06:04 AM (7cXE7)

28 Expect the Tenth Circuit to spit this one back.

--I hope, Gabe.

BTW, why and how can a judge stop even the election from being certified?  It does not sound logical to debate in court a law that does not exist.

Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2010 06:16 AM (BP6Z1)

29 The TRO, and probably the final decision by U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange runs contrary to the idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The vast majority of Muslims consider the Qur'an to be god's law (that not a typo) and the Constitution to be the law of man. The former in the Muslim's worldview, will always trump the latter.

Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange could have ascertained this simply with a little scholarship. By granting CAIR and Sharia standing, the judge is enabling the demotion of the Constitution to secondary status.


Posted by: jhstuart at November 30, 2010 06:17 AM (56M1t)

30

I do what I want...

these hickabillie cornhuskers are just going to have to learn that us progressive judges are in charge and they aren't.

Posted by: Judge Miles-LaGrange at November 30, 2010 06:19 AM (ehKDD)

31 I want to know why we allow Federal judges to rule on the constitutionality of anything.

See Marbury v. Madison, 1803.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 30, 2010 06:23 AM (3WrnJ)

32

Uh.... this law does NOT stop any PERSON from following Sharia law... it stops the STATE from using it.

It does nothing more than enshrine the idea of Sep of Church and State in the Law!

As to the question of Standing?  No one had Standing to sue Obama to see his birth Cert... because no one had yet been "harmed"... so how does this person have Standing? As the Law has not gone into effect, and no harm has been shown??? Especially as the law does nothing more than reitierate the Basic Legal concept of the Republic?

I'm confused...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 30, 2010 06:23 AM (AdK6a)

33 Hyphenated lady judge.  'Nuff said.

Posted by: FUBAR at November 30, 2010 06:23 AM (McG46)

34 Exactly what happens to OK if they go ahead an disregard the ruling?
What is the power of the federal judiciary in OK to do anything except with the consent of the parties?
OK needs to withdraw their consent to allowing the federal court the authority to rule on this.
That is to say, "we are withdrawing our defense of this matter before the federal court as this is a state matter not touching on federal matters."
A state can refuse to go to court and  . . .  what? A default? Then what? A strongly worded letter? A stern rebuke? Feet-stamping? Hunger strikes? They can't cut off funds and there is no way in hell a Republican Congress would let that happen. So, what?
And the state has sovereign immunity, so suppose the judge rules monetary fines/penalties--the state legislature has to approve paying the funds.

If OK sticks to their guns, this becomes a national rally cry where Democrat  politicians will once again be forced to defend another Ground Zero mosque. And that would be good. Let them go out and defend genital mutations, wife beating and indentured servitude that is enshrined in the moslum legal code.

Posted by: Jimmuy at November 30, 2010 06:25 AM (ImAna)

35

Hmmm... another interesting question.

This is a STATE matter, about a STATE election...

Does a Federal Court, lower than the Supremes, even have Jurisdiction?

Should this not have been litigated in State Court?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 30, 2010 06:40 AM (AdK6a)

36

Should this not have been litigated in State Court?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 30, 2010 11:40 AM (AdK6a)

It should not be litigated in ANY court right now. As Gabe said, it is not even close to meeting the requirements for standing.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2010 06:47 AM (e4sSD)

37 I wonder what the judge would think if she was thrown in a burka and told she's not allowed out of doors without permission and a proper male to accompany her. And she better walk behind him or it's 40 lashes

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2010 06:48 AM (1Jaio)

38 And best part????  Lady over in Pakistan just got the Death Penalty for supposedly Dis'n Mohamed... Sharia Law in effect...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 30, 2010 06:53 AM (AdK6a)

39 Does this female judge realize that under Sharia law she wouldn't be a judge?  As a matter of fact she wouldn't be anything but her chosen husband's property.

Stupid, short sighted bitch.

Posted by: mpfs at November 30, 2010 07:06 AM (iYbLN)

40 Then what? A strongly worded letter? A stern rebuke? Feet-stamping? Hunger strikes? They can't cut off funds and there is no way in hell a Republican Congress would let that happen. So, what?

Sensitive records would probably exchange hands between the Department of Injustice and Julian Assange.

Posted by: jhstuart at November 30, 2010 07:59 AM (56M1t)

41

Converting to Islam gets more attractive day by day. 

Special rights.

Protected status.

Smelly artists leave your icons alone.

The powerful cower.

72 virgins.

Beat the shit out of your wife, if you think she needs it.

Bathing/deoderant optional.

Benefit of the doubt always.

 

Posted by: Pelvis at November 30, 2010 08:01 AM (LlaBi)

42

 Dude, we have enough we can argue about with this judge without bringing race into it.

Not race, AA. When you turn opposition to AA into an argument about race you automatically surrender to the left.

Come on, Vic.  The implication a reader comes away with from your statement is that because she is black, she must've been an affirmative action pick (unless you're saying she's an alcoholic), and because she's an AA pick she's probably stupid.  It's not a stretch to believe that you are saying that she is stupid because she is black.  I'm as opposed to affirmative action as you are, and for all the reasons that you probably have (if so-and-so got their position to fill an AA quota, then his/her qualifications are suspect.)  I'm just saying there are enough lefty trolls perusing the comments who will see this and say "Ace o' Spades caters to a bunch of right-wing racist teabaggers!!"  We can argue this topic with out giving them fuel.

Posted by: DougV at November 30, 2010 08:04 AM (EXsuU)

43 Having carefully reviewed the briefs on this issue, and having heard the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds that whatever you bitter clingers are for, the Court is against and also you fuckers owe me some farmland.

Also, racist.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 08:04 AM (V6HDd)

44 The implication a reader comes away with from your statement is that because she is black, she must've been an affirmative action pick (unless you're saying she's an alcoholic), and because she's an AA pick she's probably stupid

Left wing, Clinton appointee and black woman with a hyphenated name.

Yes, probably an affirmative action dumbass picked for her stupid-assed ideological views rather than her command of the law.

If race comes into it, so it does. No one called black people stupid. But affirmative action mostly benefits black women, therefore the assumption that she's an unqualified dumbass is not out of line.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 08:08 AM (V6HDd)

45

 (unless you're saying she's an alcoholic),

 

Yer shaying Ima alcoholic? YER CRAZY! Ima gonna kick both yer asses soon as this room quits spinnin' around!

Posted by: Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, on her sixth Cosmo before lunch at November 30, 2010 08:18 AM (ERJIu)

46 Another good post Gabe.  Maybe, in the vein of Babs' advice for Cuda, politics is just off your reservation.

Posted by: gary gulrud at November 30, 2010 08:21 AM (/g2vP)

47

Our individual Constitutional rights can only be maintained by consulting a foreign form of religious/political law incompatible with our Constitution.

Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Sam Adams at November 30, 2010 09:49 AM (GkYyh)

48

We're trying, d*mmit.

Posted by: Oklahoma at November 30, 2010 03:41 PM (Hic+o)

49 Yerli yabanci vizyondaki tum film izle ve seyret

Posted by: sanadayan at December 04, 2010 01:01 PM (108Xt)

Posted by: olurmu at December 21, 2010 07:04 AM (knADc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
93kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.0577 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.027 seconds, 237 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.