Voters ban judges from using international law

[rushmc 23]

Now can someone explain to me why this even needs to be voted on?? wtf???

Of course this is a rhetorical question


http://www.newsok.com/article/feed/208677

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

It's really only valid if it also excludes Christian law, I'd have to imagine

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It's really only valid if it also excludes Christian law, I'd have to imagine

Wendy P.

Put down the spoon and back away from the pot

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

Some judges will look outside state or federal law and even the US Constitution to get their way on an issue. We have judges who want to cite international law as persuasive or even controlling on issues within the US. This law was clearly intended to preempt that kind of behavior.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Some judges will look outside state or federal law and even the US Constitution to get their way on an issue. We have judges who want to cite international law as persuasive or even controlling on issues within the US. This law was clearly intended to preempt that kind of behavior.

If the international law in question is part of a treaty entered into by the US, then it IS US law according to the US Constitution. But you knew that already.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

It's really only valid if it also excludes Christian law, I'd have to imagine
Wendy P.

bubble bubble , toil and trouble !

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Some judges will look outside state or federal law and even the US Constitution to get their way on an issue. We have judges who want to cite international law as persuasive or even controlling on issues within the US. This law was clearly intended to preempt that kind of behavior.

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

We have judges who want to cite international law as persuasive or even controlling on issues within the US.

Under American jurisprudence, there's nothing wrong with citing extra-jurisdictional law as persuasive. Citing it as controlling should probably not be the first recourse when there is intra-jurisdictional law that is applicable to the facts of the case. (Exception: as Kallend notes, when the US subscribes to the provision of international law via treaty.) But when there is a vacuum of law on the issue, looking outside the jurisdiction is not necessarily inappropriate.

Quote

This law was clearly intended to preempt that kind of behavior.

No; IMO, it was ostensibly intended to preempt that; but I think its clear intent was to pander to bigoted rednecks' fear of the Muslim Boogeyman.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Quote

Some judges will look outside state or federal law and even the US Constitution to get their way on an issue. We have judges who want to cite international law as persuasive or even controlling on issues within the US. This law was clearly intended to preempt that kind of behavior.

If the international law in question is part of a treaty entered into by the US, then it IS US law according to the US Constitution. But you knew that already.

This one bears repeating, as so many people apparently don't get it. To support it, I'll even provide a link, hoping it will not be considered to biased.

Wrt to the OP, I can't see what the referendum was actually about. I can't find the wording anywhere, and most news sources just talk about sharia law. I know that one should never let facts spoil a good discussion... but what was actually voted upon?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[billvon 3,116]

>Now can someone explain to me why this even needs to be voted on?

Uh oh. Looks like the anti-Islamic crowd might have some trouble keeping this law on the books:

============
Oklahoma has the second largest population of Native Americans in the U.S and law experts like Oklahoma University law professor Taiawagi Helton point out that language in the law banning courts from looking at “legal precepts of other nations or cultures” could pose a problem if applied to tribal legal cases, as the tribes are considered sovereign nations. In fact, the Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission released an official memo on October 20 explaining how the “lack of specific tribal law language” could “damage the sovereignty of all Oklahoma tribes” and “starkly reminds [the Commission] that some Oklahoma lawmakers forgot that our nation and state were built on the principles, blood, and back of other nations and cultures, namely, our tribes."
=============
International And Islamic Law (SQ 755) Stopped By Federal Judge
Stephanie Robins
November 11, 2010
Posted in Finance News

An amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would have prohibited state courts from considering sharia law when deciding cases was blocked by a federal judge. The amendment would have also prohibited considering international law as well. A restraining order has been issued to block implementation pending the outcome of a November 22 hearing by U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange.
==========

It's always awkward when it turns out that the law you passed affects more than just the people you hate.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Now can someone explain to me why this even needs to be voted on?

Uh oh. Looks like the anti-Islamic crowd might have some trouble keeping this law on the books:

============
Oklahoma has the second largest population of Native Americans in the U.S and law experts like Oklahoma University law professor Taiawagi Helton point out that language in the law banning courts from looking at “legal precepts of other nations or cultures” could pose a problem if applied to tribal legal cases, as the tribes are considered sovereign nations. In fact, the Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission released an official memo on October 20 explaining how the “lack of specific tribal law language” could “damage the sovereignty of all Oklahoma tribes” and “starkly reminds [the Commission] that some Oklahoma lawmakers forgot that our nation and state were built on the principles, blood, and back of other nations and cultures, namely, our tribes."
=============
International And Islamic Law (SQ 755) Stopped By Federal Judge
Stephanie Robins
November 11, 2010
Posted in Finance News

An amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would have prohibited state courts from considering sharia law when deciding cases was blocked by a federal judge. The amendment would have also prohibited considering international law as well. A restraining order has been issued to block implementation pending the outcome of a November 22 hearing by U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange.
==========

It's always awkward when it turns out that the law you passed affects more than just the people you hate.

you love to bring emotion into things dont you

Cause you dont have an argument if you dont I suppose

We will see how this plays out

Need a tissue?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Cause you dont have an argument
Need a tissue

Oh, for Christ sake, Marc, at least we pinko tree-huggers give it a try; all you ever do is bark at the passing cars. How about trying a cogent counter-argument for a change?
Nah, you're right, Marc; BillVon's one of those "don't have an argument" guys.

I know, I know, folks: I'm feeding the Internet Troll under the bridge. Sorry, folks.

OK, Marc - bark something back.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Cause you dont have an argument
Need a tissue

Oh, for Christ sake, Marc, at least we pinko tree-huggers give it a try; all you ever do is bark at the passing cars. How about trying a cogent counter-argument for a change?
Nah, you're right, Marc; BillVon's one of those "don't have an argument" guys.

I know, I know, folks: I'm feeding the Internet Troll under the bridge. Sorry, folks.

OK, Marc - bark something back.

When I am told something is done because of hate the the debate ends

Same with your post here

woof

Want to have a discussion?

Start one

Goona go all emotional or claim someone else has an opinion based on hate?

Go cry to your mother


Do you look good in pink?

Never mind

I dont care

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Well, since you do not acept PM's I will post this here...

You know I could have posted to the fact that the law is not aimed a recognized American tribes but a law not from this country. Never mind the law is totally based on a religion! WTF dude, you libs would go fucking ballistic if the law passed stated that the courts should only follow Christian laws of some kind. And then you would fully support a law that stated the courts can not pay any attention to Christian laws?
A little disingenuous maybe here?

I could have posted to the fact that judges (IMO) should only consider US law when adjudicating a case because they are there to interpret US law, not interject foreign law into our courts (which is judicial activism in my opinion)

But I was not given that chance
A premise of disrespect was laid out from the get go

I was talked down to by billvon saying or at least insinuating that I hate a group of people and that is why I support a law like that?

Bills post got the response it deserved

Then you come a trolling in with your bull shit and you expect to get treated with respect????
Gotta show it to get it dude

Yours got the respect it deserved too

Now, go listen to your theme song



Trollin trollin trollin……

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Whatever, Marc. You want to be "that guy", knock yourself out.

[billvon 3,116]

>You know I could have posted to the fact that the law is not aimed
>a recognized American tribes but a law not from this country.

Ding ding ding! You got it!

And that's why this law is so foolish, and why it won't stand. It was intended to be aimed at Muslims, but the idiots who wrote it wanted to make it "more inclusive" so they couldn't be accused of targeting one religion.

So this is the change they proposed:

"The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression. "

Which means that it covers the Cherokee Nation as well.

Now, clearly, that's not what the writers intended. They just wanted to target Muslims. But now that it's law, it will be interpreted by what it actually says. No one will go back to the authors and ask "did you really mean that?"

Better to think first, pass laws later (IMO.)

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

We have judges who want to cite international law as persuasive or even controlling on issues within the US.

Under American jurisprudence, there's nothing wrong with citing extra-jurisdictional law as persuasive. Citing it as controlling should probably not be the first recourse when there is intra-jurisdictional law that is applicable to the facts of the case. (Exception: as Kallend notes, when the US subscribes to the provision of international law via treaty.) But when there is a vacuum of law on the issue, looking outside the jurisdiction is not necessarily inappropriate.

Quote

This law was clearly intended to preempt that kind of behavior.

No; IMO, it was ostensibly intended to preempt that; but I think its clear intent was to pander to bigoted rednecks' fear of the Muslim Boogeyman.

You all mean them thar boogy men that kills thier daughters, and calls it "Honor Killin" ...Yep, Us Redneck don;t want that sheit coming here....We dumb fuckin hicks believe in Protecting our women folk!

[wmw999 2,588]

According to Athealth.com, roughly 1700 women were murdered by a spouse or partner just in the US.

There are roughly 1.57 billion Muslims, and about 300 million Americans.

So sounds like it's pretty close to me.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skyrider 0]

Quote

According to Athealth.com, roughly 1700 women were murdered by a spouse or partner just in the US.

There are roughly 1.57 billion Muslims, and about 300 million Americans.

So sounds like it's pretty close to me.

Wendy P.

So, Your point is "ignore"? Yeaaahhhh...see how that worked for France and The UK...they are losing their country to Islam...

[billvon 3,116]

>So, Your point is "ignore"?

No, I believe her point is "don't ignore either one." Sure, we can criticize others for their actions. But we will have more luck fixing the problems in our own backyard.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>So, Your point is "ignore"?

No, I believe her point is "don't ignore either one." Sure, we can criticize others for their actions. But we will have more luck fixing the problems in our own backyard.

So...Ignore, we have fuck ups too..

Hell, lets ignore ALL criminal acts....they surely belong to some small group, that doesnt commit as many crimes as some other group...

[billvon 3,116]

>So...Ignore, we have fuck ups too..

No. The smart money is on recognizing that we have fuckups too - just like they do.

[wmw999 2,588]

I was in London for a couple of weeks about five years ago. Everyone spoke English to me, and the vast majority looked exactly like the people in Austin Powers (except for better teeth).

You only read the newsworthy stuff. The normal stuff doesn't make the news; it's booooooring. Kind of like all those newspaper stories about skydives that went right.

The vast majority of Muslims get up in the morning, worry about their families, want their children to grow up with better futures, work for a living, etc. etc. etc. Just like most of the rest of us.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

France and The UK...they are losing their country to Islam...

Of course they're not. Anymore than the US is losing its country to bikers.

For a tough guy, your Muslim fear is irrational.