Voters ban judges from using international law

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The actual language of the law...

Quote

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.

... 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.

"True agenda", huh? Is this another one of those things you 'just know', like your Dad not voting for Obama?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

The actual language of the law...

Quote

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.

... 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?

Only
Islam
Uses
Sharia
Law.

[billvon 3,119]

>If the will was written under foreign law, then the property would be foreign
>as well..

?? You don't know anyone who has emigrated into the US? I do. I bet some of them wrote their wills before they got here.

>Even more lame - people married in foreign countries have to have their
>marriage licenses translated . . .

So you want to have US courts consider foreign law? Cool. Sounds like the Tenth Circuit Court agrees with you.

[quade 4]

Quote

It did NOT single out Islam

It did use Sharia as an example

So you are saying Sharia is a religion now?

Please fill in the blank.

Sharia is to _____ as Catholic is to Christianity.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The actual language of the law...

Quote

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.

... 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?

Only
Islam
Uses
Sharia
Law.

Sharia is NOT a religion

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

[billvon 3,119]

>Deep cleansing breaths, IN/OUT, it will help calm you.

I'm perfectly happy. The system worked and the law was struck down. The Islamophobes lost; sounds like some of them are pretty pissed off.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It did NOT single out Islam

It did use Sharia as an example

So you are saying Sharia is a religion now?

Please fill in the blank.

Sharia is to _____ as Catholic is to Christianity.

So, which of the later is a law?

"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]

Quote

>Deep cleansing breaths, IN/OUT, it will help calm you.

I'm perfectly happy. The system worked and the law was struck down. The Islamophobes lost; sounds like some of them are pretty pissed off.

who is pissed off?

And you think it is over 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

[billvon 3,119]

>So, which of the later is a law?

From Wikipedia:

========
The canon law of the Catholic Church, is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code and principles of legal interpretation. It lacks the necessary binding force present in most modern day legal systems.
========

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So, which of the later is a law?

From Wikipedia:

========
The canon law of the Catholic Church, is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code and principles of legal interpretation. It lacks the necessary binding force present in most modern day legal systems.
========

So then, by your defense of Sharia, should a court choose to use canon law, we have to acept that


So this is progress to you?

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

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Please fill in the blank.

Sharia is to _____ as Catholic is to Christianity.

There is no solution. Catholicism is either:
a. a sect of Christianity
or
b. the same thing as Christianity (all others being heretical violations).

Sharia is to Islam as cannon is to Catholicism. Yes Cannon law does still exist and holds hearings right there in your home Diocese.

[billvon 3,119]

>So then, by your defense of Sharia, should a court choose to use canon
>law, we have to acept that.

Nope. No one has ever claimed that a court should use Sharia (or Catholic canon) law, nor has anyone ever defended that.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So then, by your defense of Sharia, should a court choose to use canon
>law, we have to acept that.

Nope. No one has ever claimed that a court should use Sharia (or Catholic canon) law, nor has anyone ever defended that.

Yet courts HAVE used Sharia law

Courts have cited international law

YOU are defending a ruling that says courts in OK CAN use them is they chose

And by saying NO to the use of canon law YOU are being discriminatory by picking one religion over another

Wow

"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

Quote

The actual language of the law...

Quote

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.

... 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.

"True agenda", huh? Is this another one of those things you 'just know', like your Dad not voting for Obama?

It's what the court knows. The court made it clear that it rejected the "example" explanation, specifically noting that only Sharia law, but not laws of other religions, was singled-out in the language of the statute. So if I "just know" it, well, so do four federal court judges.

My Dad did vote for Obama. He told me so, and he told me why. You know, Mike, we all get a bit snarky in here, but a lot of people have called you out in particular for taking it to such a personal level so often. We're all subject to self-examination. Maybe you should take a breath and re-consider the manner of your approach.

[quade 4]

Quote

And by saying NO to the use of canon law YOU are being discriminatory by picking one religion over another

Which would be exactly why the court ruled against the Oklahoma law.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And by saying NO to the use of canon law YOU are being discriminatory by picking one religion over another

Which would be exactly why the court ruled against the Oklahoma law.

So you are ok with the courts acepting/using canon law

Hmmm

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>If the will was written under foreign law, then the property would be foreign
>as well..

?? You don't know anyone who has emigrated into the US? I do. I bet some of them wrote their wills before they got here.

And you think this is disproving my point, how, exactly?

Quote

>Even more lame - people married in foreign countries have to have their
>marriage licenses translated . . .

So you want to have US courts consider foreign law? Cool. Sounds like the Tenth Circuit Court agrees with you.

Recognition of a foreign marriage contract != consideration of foreign law regarding a decision concerning US law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And by saying NO to the use of canon law YOU are being discriminatory by picking one religion over another

Which would be exactly why the court ruled against the Oklahoma law.

So you are ok with the courts acepting/using canon law
Hmmm

Nobody is suggesting that. Again, an amazing parallel to the Oklahoma case.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Nobody is suggesting that. .

[quade 4]

Quote

Nobody is suggesting that. .

Exactly
Yet you pick one and not the other

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yet courts HAVE used Sharia law

US courts have ruled based on Sharia Law? As in, it is illegal under state or federal law, but we rule not guilty because of Sharia Law?

Quote

Courts have cited international law

True and whith a signed treaty it is even considered US law.

The ruling says that creating a law which singles out one religous legal system over another is illegal.

That ruling is not the same as ruling that it is ok to use Sharia Law in stead of local, state or federal laws.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Nobody is suggesting that. .

Exactly
Yet you pick one and not the other

Marc, have you met me? You should certainly know by now I pick NO religion over another.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The actual language of the law...

Quote

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.

... 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.

"True agenda", huh? Is this another one of those things you 'just know', like your Dad not voting for Obama?

It's what the court knows. The court made it clear that it rejected the "example" explanation, specifically noting that only Sharia law, but not laws of other religions, was singled-out in the language of the statute. So if I "just know" it, well, so do four federal court judges.

If the Catholic church was attempting to place canon law in supremacy to state law, they would have mentioned it too, I'm sure.

Quote

My Dad did vote for Obama. He told me so, and he told me why.

And then you asked him the 'real, REAL reason', as I recall.

Quote

You know, Mike, we all get a bit snarky in here, but a lot of people have called you out in particular for taking it to such a personal level so often.

Then perhaps certain persons should quit using personal anecdotes as evidence, counselor.

Quote

We're all subject to self-examination. Maybe you should take a breath and re-consider the manner of your approach.

Maybe you should quit claiming to know the 'true agenda' of a state and stick to provable evidence, counselor.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Yet courts HAVE used Sharia law

US courts have ruled based on Sharia Law? As in, it is illegal under state or federal law, but we rule not guilty because of Sharia Law?

Quote

Courts have cited international law

True and whith a signed treaty it is even considered US law.

The ruling says that creating a law which singles out one religous legal system over another is illegal.

That ruling is not the same as ruling that it is ok to use Sharia Law in stead of local, state or federal laws.

So your contention is that Sharia is a religion too?

BTW
Courts have used Sharia in us courts
Thait is why OK voted on it

"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]

I'm really sorry that you completely ignore what so many people are trying to tell you, Mike.