billvon 3,085 #51 January 11, 2012 >They ruled in favor of sharia law, which is religion-based. Nice try! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 January 11, 2012 Quote>They ruled in favor of sharia law, which is religion-based. Nice try! QuoteIt's always awkward when it turns out that the law you passed affects more than just the people you hate. Yours wasn't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #53 January 11, 2012 >Right. So now some group of muslims is free to establish their own closed >community somewhere, and rule their own little world using sharia law. Yes, they can - just like they always could. And just like always, they will be bound by the laws in the place they live. >And then you have to wonder why Mormons can't have multiple wives >under THEIR own religious laws . . . . They can - provided that is not against the law where they live. >If we can't tell muslims they can't have sharia law, then how come we DO >tell mormons they can't have mormon law, and we DO tell others that they >can't marry off teen underage girls? They can do all that - provided it is legal where they live. Heck, you can get married at age 14 in Texas if you really want to (and can get a judge to agree.) And if you want to you can paint yourself blue, collect stamps, buy guns, live a gun nut lifestyle, collect em to impress your friends - again, as long as you follow the laws of the place you live in. Freedom's pretty cool, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #54 January 11, 2012 >Yours wasn't. Not as good a troll. Your troll-fu is weakening. At this rate you won't even be able to get Kallend going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 January 11, 2012 Quote>Yours wasn't. Not as good a troll. Your troll-fu is weakening. At this rate you won't even be able to get Kallend going. Unlike you, I wasn't trolling. Nice try.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #56 January 11, 2012 QuoteWhich means that it covers the Cherokee Nation as well. Now, clearly, that's not what the writers intended. Don't be so sure. Right now, tribal businesses in OK share revenue with the state via negotiated compacts with the various tribes. Having this law in effect would allow them to effectively ignore those compacts if they so chose and attempt to dictate the terms of Tribal enterprises. This is a bigger issue than it seems because the "sovereign" status of federally-recognized tribes is more lip-service than reality, and there is a real queation of how much protection the Tribes could expect from Washington. The bigger problem is that the OK lawmakers that came up with this law aren't from the part's of OK that are real Indian Country. Otherwise, they'd have realized that l~15 years ago, the state came a hair's breadth away from witnessing a large scale "hot" tribal civil war and a great of that anger and restiveness remains. They try something stupid, and it's liable to create a flashpoint at a time when the majority of OK's NG units are deployed overseas. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #57 January 11, 2012 This is gonna be good. As of right now it's JR 1, BillV 0 We pick up the action at BillV's replies: --------------- Quote>Right. So now some group of muslims is free to establish their own closed >community somewhere, and rule their own little world using sharia law. Yes, they can - just like they always could. And just like always, they will be bound by the laws in the place they live. >And then you have to wonder why Mormons can't have multiple wives >under THEIR own religious laws . . . . They can - provided that is not against the law where they live. >If we can't tell muslims they can't have sharia law, then how come we DO >tell mormons they can't have mormon law, and we DO tell others that they >can't marry off teen underage girls? They can do all that - provided it is legal where they live. Heck, you can get married at age 14 in Texas if you really want to (and can get a judge to agree.) And if you want to you can paint yourself blue, collect stamps, buy guns, live a gun nut lifestyle, collect em to impress your friends - again, as long as you follow the laws of the place you live in. Freedom's pretty cool, eh? --------------- A weak return by BillV. Dodging tactics failed to score this time around. Score now stands... JR 2, BillV 0 Social Commentary Editorial: "Freedom's pretty cool, eh?" Sure, as as long as you follow the laws of the place in which you live. Spelling needs work...all those times you used "you can", you forgot the apostrophe and the T at the end of "can".My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 January 11, 2012 The first thing you have to realize is the Oklahoma law called out a specific religion to discriminate against. Once you understand that fact, the concept of judges ruling it unconstitutional ought to be obvious. No US law is going to be upheld if it discriminates against one, single, religion. It's just not going to happen, nor do you want it to. The judges didn't rule "for Sharia law" as some here have suggested; they ruled against religious discrimination. Nor were these "activist judges" as others have also suggested; the judges were performing their Constitutional duties to interpret the law. That's simply the way our system is set up. When laws get passed and brought to the court via trials, judges interpret the Constitutionality of those specific laws. This one was literally a gimmie. It was absolutely going to be overturned on Constitutional grounds.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #59 January 11, 2012 Have you ever argued with a small child, or an elderly person with dementia, or perhaps the White Queen? At least they can't help it. But the "Through the Looking Glass" effect is the same: it's tempting to get sucked in, until you realize that you'll only get jerked around. That's why most, once realizing this, don't even bother. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #60 January 11, 2012 QuoteThe first thing you have to realize is the Oklahoma law called out a specific religion to discriminate against. Once you understand that fact, the concept of judges ruling it unconstitutional ought to be obvious. No US law is going to be upheld if it discriminates against one, single, religion. It's just not going to happen, nor do you want it to. The judges didn't rule "for Sharia law" as some here have suggested; they ruled against religious discrimination. Nor were these "activist judges" as others have also suggested; the judges were performing their Constitutional duties to interpret the law. That's simply the way our system is set up. When laws get passed and brought to the court via trials, judges interpret the Constitutionality of those specific laws. This one was literally a gimmie. It was absolutely going to be overturned on Constitutional grounds. No, the vote ruled out using a specific set of laws They used the religion argument successfully, this time"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #61 January 11, 2012 Quote Quote The first thing you have to realize is the Oklahoma law called out a specific religion to discriminate against. Once you understand that fact, the concept of judges ruling it unconstitutional ought to be obvious. No US law is going to be upheld if it discriminates against one, single, religion. It's just not going to happen, nor do you want it to. The judges didn't rule "for Sharia law" as some here have suggested; they ruled against religious discrimination. Nor were these "activist judges" as others have also suggested; the judges were performing their Constitutional duties to interpret the law. That's simply the way our system is set up. When laws get passed and brought to the court via trials, judges interpret the Constitutionality of those specific laws. This one was literally a gimmie. It was absolutely going to be overturned on Constitutional grounds. No, the vote ruled out using a specific set of laws Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #62 January 11, 2012 >"Freedom's pretty cool, eh?" >Sure, as as long as you follow the laws of the place in which you live. Exactly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #63 January 11, 2012 >No, the vote ruled out using a specific set of laws Incorrect again. I recommend actually reading the law instead of just watching FOX News. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #64 January 11, 2012 Quote>No, the vote ruled out using a specific set of laws Incorrect again. I recommend actually reading the law instead of just watching FOX News. I rarely watch FOX So your snarky remark misses I think I am correct You need to stop reading the Huffington Report and the Daily Kos"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 January 11, 2012 Quote>No, the vote ruled out using a specific set of laws Incorrect again. I recommend actually reading the law instead of just watching FOX News. I recommend actually reading the law instead of watching MSNBC: "C. 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 laws 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 law 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."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #66 January 11, 2012 Quote 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 BAN? Remove em from the bench for even trying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #67 January 11, 2012 >I recommend actually reading the law instead of watching MSNBC: I did - and one thing that sunk it was the prohibition against even _considering_ a foreign law. Widow comes in with her husband's will? Sorry, can't look at it! It was written under a foreign law. What? She should still inherit his property? Sorry, can't consider that! They were married under foreign law and we are banned from considering it. Fortunately such a ridiculous ban was struck down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #68 January 11, 2012 >BAN? Remove em from the bench for even trying. Go for it! Remove every Oklahoma judge who has applied Sharia law instead of US or Oklahoma law to any case. I'm all for it. I'll even wait while you find one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #69 January 11, 2012 Quote Quote >No, the vote ruled out using a specific set of laws Incorrect again. I recommend actually reading the law instead of just watching FOX News. I recommend actually reading the law instead of watching MSNBC: "C. 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 laws 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 law 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." Next I would think OK will ask for a hearing in front of the full court Either way the SC will decide snarky comments not withstanding"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 January 11, 2012 Quote>I recommend actually reading the law instead of watching MSNBC: I did - and one thing that sunk it was the prohibition against even _considering_ a foreign law. Widow comes in with her husband's will? Sorry, can't look at it! It was written under a foreign law. If the will was written under foreign law, then the property would be foreign as well...so the will would be probated in THAT country and not the US. A US will would be written in compliance with US/State laws regarding probate. QuoteWhat? She should still inherit his property? Sorry, can't consider that! They were married under foreign law and we are banned from considering it. Even more lame - people married in foreign countries have to have their marriage licenses translated and validated as part of naturalization proceedings. QuoteFortunately such a ridiculous ban was struck down. So were your ridiculous attempts to misdirect.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #71 January 11, 2012 The actual language of the law... Quoteprovided 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 law or Sharia Law. ... is exactly why Marc is incorrect. Yes, I know the argument that the statute singled-out Sharia law only as "an example". That's what the state argued in court. But now four federal judges, observing that Sharia law was the ONLY religious law cited in the statute, have expressly, and unanimously, rejected that argument as a thin veil to cover the true agenda, as well as the true legal effect: to single-out Islam in particular for discrimination under color of state law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #72 January 11, 2012 > you love to bring emotion into things dont you Liberals define everything in terms of their emotins. Well at least those I have come into contact with. It's like talking to a WALL, seems silly I know, why even try. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #73 January 11, 2012 QuoteThe actual language of the law... Quoteprovided 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 law or Sharia Law. ... is exactly why Marc is incorrect. Yes, I know the argument that the statute singled-out Sharia law only as "an example". That's what the state argued in court. But now four federal judges, observing that Sharia law was the ONLY religious law cited in the statute, have expressly, and unanimously, rejected that argument as a thin veil to cover the true agenda, as well as the true legal effect: to single-out Islam in particular for discrimination under color of state law. It did NOT single out Islam It did use Sharia as an example So you are saying Sharia is a religion now?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #74 January 11, 2012 Quote>BAN? Remove em from the bench for even trying. Go for it! Remove every Oklahoma judge who has applied Sharia law instead of US or Oklahoma law to any case. I'm all for it. I'll even wait while you find one. Deep cleansing breaths, IN/OUT, it will help calm you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #75 January 11, 2012 That really pisses me off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
