Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 98

Thread: Oklahoma Shariah Ban Is Blocked

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Oklahoma Shariah Ban Is Blocked

    Trying to formulate an opinion on this thing which somehow I never heard of until now...

    POLITICS | NOVEMBER 9, 2010
    Oklahoma Shariah Ban Is Blocked
    By JESS BRAVIN

    A federal judge blocked Oklahoma officials Monday from implementing a voter-approved referendum that singles out Islamic religious law, or Shariah, as a threat to the state.

    Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, of U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, set a Nov. 22 hearing to consider whether the Save Our State Amendment violates the U.S. Constitution. Until then, she issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state Election Board from certifying State Question 755, which passed by 70% on Nov. 2.

    The measure directs state courts to ignore "legal precepts of other nations or cultures" and specifically forbids consideration of "international law or Sharia Law."

    A Muslim activist in Oklahoma City, Muneer Awad, filed suit last week, alleging the measure violated the First Amendment, which forbids government from promoting an "establishment of religion" or interfering with "free exercise" of religion.


    The measure "would enshrine disapproval of Islam in the state constitution," said Mr. Awad, 27 years old, in an interview. He is executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In addition, he said, the provision could invalidate his will, which refers to Islamic teachings on the distribution of property.

    At Monday's hearing, Judge Miles-LaGrange rejected state arguments that the suit should be dismissed on procedural grounds. A spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office declined to comment.

    Although no Oklahoma court is known to have cited Islamic law, the measure's backers say they fear that state judges might someday turn to it.

    "The future of our children and grandchildren is at stake," a co-sponsor, Republican state Sen. Anthony Sykes, said in an interview last week.

    Mr. Awad, who said he was born in Michigan and attended the University of Georgia's law school, called that "ridiculous."

    Under the Constitution, "any time a religion prescribes something that conflicts with public policy, our [U.S.] laws prevail," he said. "This applies to Christian and Jewish law as well."

    It's unclear how the Save Our State Amendment would alter Oklahoma court proceedings.

    Neither the laws of foreign countries nor international law, which concerns dealings among nations, ever have been binding on state or federal courts. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make treaties, which, like acts of Congress, are the "supreme law of the land," binding state judges and superseding state constitutions.

    State and federal judges occasionally cite in their opinions nonbinding materials for context or to illustrate points. References to Shakespeare and Bob Dylan, as well as to the courts of other nations and international courts, have been used in this way.

    In a 2005 Supreme Court opinion that concluded it was unconstitutional to execute juvenile offenders, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "the opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."

    Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...807855194.html

  2. #2
    It will be struck down. Because it tries to forbid consideration of "international law," most formal international law is in the form of treaties, treaties are considered federal law, and federal law trumps state law due to the supremacy clause.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    It will be struck down. Because it tries to forbid consideration of "international law," most formal international law is in the form of treaties, treaties are considered federal law, and federal law trumps state law due to the supremacy clause.
    Legal precepts aren't international law, though.

  4. #4
    Although no Oklahoma court is known to have cited Islamic law, the measure's backers say they fear that state judges might someday turn to it.
    Fear

    "The future of our children and grandchildren is at stake"
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  5. #5
    Voter push. Put stuff like this on the ballot to rally the troops for elections. Same with gay-related issues.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Voter push.
    Get the ignorant bigot vote?
    . . .

  7. #7
    What does it say about the voter when this kind of a measure can get ~70% of the vote? I blame voters for being idiots, and the education system (and media) for contributing to that stupidity. Politicians are just doing what politicians do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    Last edited by Loki; 11-09-2010 at 05:33 PM.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What does it say about the voter when this kind of a measure can get ~70% of the vote? I blame voters for being idiots, and the education system (and media) for contributing that to stupidity. Politicians are just doing what politicians do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    You're too quick to give politicians a pass. They're the ones who control the budgets, and funding for education. They're also the ones with War Chests, to flood the media with ads based on fear and bigotry. They exacerbate the wedge issues, because they can.

    That's not just taking advantage of a situation for their own gain: that's creating a climate that's bad for the country.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Politicians are just doing what politicians do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    Which is pandering to or enabling stupidity. I thought the whole reason that we're a republic instead of a direct democracy was so that stuff like this doesn't happen, for instance politicians notice that a large percentage of their constituency want a law passed that is either brutally stupid, unconstitutional, or ridiculous, and then ignore them, so that said terrible law isn't even given a chance at existing.
    . . .

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Which is pandering to or enabling stupidity. I thought the whole reason that we're a republic instead of a direct democracy was so that stuff like this doesn't happen, for instance politicians notice that a large percentage of their constituency want a law passed that is either brutally stupid, unconstitutional, or ridiculous, and then ignore them, so that said terrible law isn't even given a chance at existing.
    Yeah, because being a "republic" magically changes human nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    How's that working out?
    Pretty well. We've never had a single successful far-right or far-left party.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Pretty well. We've never had a single successful far-right or far-left party.
    Cool, then you can stop posting about how far left the Dems are! And just ignore the Tea Partiers moving the GOP to the right!

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Yeah, because being a "republic" magically changes human nature.
    I was remarking on your apologist style reply which was along the lines of "Boy will be boys" but with politicians.
    . . .

  13. #13
    Not having read the thread beyond post #6:
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What does it say about the voter when this kind of a measure can get ~70% of the vote? I blame voters for being idiots, and the education system (and media) for contributing to that stupidity. Politicians are just doing what politicians do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    If the First Amendment didn't exist, I'd want to create it.

    I have no objection with the Shariah part of the measure (besides the fact its redundant, the First Amendment prevents Shariah Law anyway while also IMO preventing this). The irony isn't that 70% voted for this, its how many of that 70% do want Christian law in the courts.

    The courts are a place for civil law, not religious law.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Not having read the thread beyond post #6:
    If the First Amendment didn't exist, I'd want to create it.

    I have no objection with the Shariah part of the measure (besides the fact its redundant, the First Amendment prevents Shariah Law anyway while also IMO preventing this). The irony isn't that 70% voted for this, its how many of that 70% do want Christian law in the courts.

    The courts are a place for civil law, not religious law.
    The measure also bans consideration of international law and laws of other countries, which happens to be unconstitutional.

    By the way, it's pretty clear this passed because Oklahomans are fearful of Muslims/Islam, not because they want a separation of state and church.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The measure also bans consideration of international law and laws of other countries, which happens to be unconstitutional.

    By the way, it's pretty clear this passed because Oklahomans are fearful of Muslims/Islam, not because they want a separation of state and church.
    Hence why I wrote "Shariah part of the measure".

    I think my second sentance said much the same thing as yours.

  16. #16
    People voting on the Right give the pols a pass on stuff like this because otherwise they get really uncomfortable. Sure, the nature of politics is that by choosing a candidate or party to vote with, one makes compromises. But with only two flavors in the US, people get forced into some very uncomfortable compromises. So you find Obama-haters in some situations where they'd almost rather have their dick fall off than be aligned with certain types. That medicine goes down a lot easier if you blame it on "dumb voters" rather than blaming it on the tolerance of xenophobia and bigotry in their new party.

  17. #17
    Yeah, our two party system tries to build big tents. But it can backfire.

  18. #18
    I didn't realize that someone voting for a Republican in Oklahoma also had an obligation to vote affirmatively on this referendum. Coincidentally, a two-party system leads to moderation, not extremism, so the criticisms by you two makes no sense.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I didn't realize that someone voting for a Republican in Oklahoma also had an obligation to vote affirmatively on this referendum. Coincidentally, a two-party system leads to moderation, not extremism, so the criticisms by you two makes no sense.
    How's that working out?

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I didn't realize that someone voting for a Republican in Oklahoma also had an obligation to vote affirmatively on this referendum.
    Ah, the reflexive distortion question, thus avoiding the issue that you have aligned yourself with the bigots. Yeah, you don't have to vote on those measures, Loki. But you've aligned yourself with the party that frequently puts them on the ballot. As you well know.

    How comfortable are your sleeping partners that bed?

  21. #21
    Spin it let's begin it. Angel_Mapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Suzette
    Posts
    338
    That this passed doesn't frighten me as much as most of the comments I'm seeing about it being blocked, which are along the lines of activist judges ignoring the will of the people. With this and the Iowa judges being ousted... is this like Evolution over there and they don't teach civics because they don't want it to be true?
    Angel Mapper - Prometheus

    To have said goodbye to things!

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel_Mapper View Post
    That this passed doesn't frighten me as much as most of the comments I'm seeing about it being blocked, which are along the lines of activist judges ignoring the will of the people. With this and the Iowa judges being ousted... is this like Evolution over there and they don't teach civics because they don't want it to be true?
    Who knows. The whole notion of ballot initiatives never made much sense to me. I suppose it was "activist judges" that caved to party powers in the first place, by allowing that type of voting? Votes to amend a state constitution makes me wonder what the hell state legislators are for?

  23. #23
    How does that help things? All you've got there is excluding some of the voices, while making all the voters compromise rather than making the parties compromise. Great frackin job.

  24. #24
    It would really help if you knew anything about countries other than the US. It would certainly help with your Chicken Little tendencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I was remarking on your apologist style reply which was along the lines of "Boy will be boys" but with politicians.
    It's not an apologist argument; it's a realist argument. If you want to live with your head in the sand, that's your choice.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It would really help if you knew anything about countries other than the US. It would certainly help with your Chicken Little tendencies.
    We're debating voters and politicians in Oklahoma acting in a manner that is ignorant, and I bring up a specific instance of how our government, the US government, was styled in order to prevent or curtail this sort of thing, and somehow knowledge of other countries is applicable to these statements, and I'm displaying Chicken Little tendencies, how so?

    It's not an apologist argument; it's a realist argument. If you want to live with your head in the sand, that's your choice.
    Perhaps this was an error in communication on my part, so I'll illustrate:

    Realist Argument - X are just doing what X does, because Y.
    Apologist Argument - X are just doing what X does, because Y. Blame Z for allowing Y.

    Edit: A realist argument illustrates that X does X because Y. An apologist argument illustrates that X does X because Y, but another group Z should be blamed for allowing Y to happen, and implying that X could not or should not be expected to moderate their own actions.

    Besides that you can easily go back to your original argument, and generally substitute in any unwanted or criminal behavior and still have it make sense, and it becomes another blame the victim argument.

    I blame voters for being idiots. Politicians are just doing what politicians do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    I blame victims for being idiots. Rapists are just doing what rapists do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    I blame victims for being idiots. Murderers are just doing what murderers do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    I blame victims for being idiots. Thieves are just doing what thieves do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    I blame victims for being idiots. Con-artists are just doing what con-artists do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.
    . . .

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Perhaps this was an error in communication on my part, so I'll illustrate: [...]
    No, it wasn't a communication error on your part. Loki simply refuses to explore who's a victim, or how things got this way.

    Much easier to suggest anyone outside political science academia is.....in need of more poli sci education. He will need a job one of these days, after all.


  27. #27
    Lovely! Insults and the appeal to self authority in one succinct post!

    You are truly the Prince of Lies. I bow to your superiority.

  28. #28
    See folks, it's everyone else who's got their head in the sand. Certainly not Loki.


  29. #29
    I think I'll just allow Tear, GGT, Chaloobi, and you to fight over the correct version of liberalism and regulation. Enjoy.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I think I'll just allow Tear, GGT, Chaloobi, and you to fight over the correct version of liberalism and regulation. Enjoy.
    Your students should hammer you for conflating regulation with liberalism, or political correctedNess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •