Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on November 03, 2010, 05:44:07 AM
-
"Voters ban judges from using international law,"
Associated Press, November 2:
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."
Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.
http://www.koamtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13433018
Good move. We've already seen the tentacles of Sharia making their way into the NJ justice system.
What exactly are they threatening to sue over? Apparently these "American" Muslims seem to think their laws supersede those of the US Constitution.
-
The fact that we even have to have these measures in the first place speaks VOLUMES.
-
3333 is correct. It is pathetic that such legislation would have to be written and approved.
When did the USA stop being a sovereign nation? Muslims need to wake the hell up. This isn't Europe. If they believe otherwise they are going to be in for a rough awakening.
-
Applause for the good people of Oklahoma.
-
CAIR to Announce Suit Challenging Oklahoma Anti-Islam Amendment
By: PR Newswire
Nov. 3, 2010 06:30 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., Nov. 3, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Thursday, November 4, the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) will hold a news conference with religious and civil rights leaders in the State Capitol Building to announce the filing of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an anti-Islam ballot measure (State Question 755) passed in yesterday's election. The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling.
http://www.sys-con.com/node/1598088
What could possibly be unconstitutional about banning Sharia Law? CAIR and the rest of the Muslims protesting this bill are showing their true colors. Guess all that research showing that Muslims in the West put Sharia ahead of their country's laws is quite true. ::)
-
Calling the ACLU . . . . ::)
-
The problem with this is NAFTA and various other free trade agreement, not to mention membership in the WTO has already made the USA as well as other nations subject to international laws that do indeed supercede national and state / provincial ones. :-\ I think the horses left the barn a long time ago.
-
The problem with this is NAFTA and various other free trade agreement, not to mention membership in the WTO has already made the USA as well as other nations subject to international laws that do indeed supercede national and state / provincial ones. :-\ I think the horses left the barn a long time ago.
Then its time to get the lassos and ropes out and get these horses back,
-
The problem with this is NAFTA and various other free trade agreement, not to mention membership in the WTO has already made the USA as well as other nations subject to international laws that do indeed supercede national and state / provincial ones. :-\ I think the horses left the barn a long time ago.
Nope, thanks for playing.
-
this is a good call imo and should be passed the same across America. But they should include other religions too. Judiasm has it's own laws and courts too and obviously has had a lot of influence on the judicial system in America. If it's getting pre-emptive and you don't want the shit overturned, do it fairly across the board. Don't just single out Islam and international law.
I especially like that they are putting a stop to international law considerations.
-
this is a good call imo and should be passed the same across America. But they should include other religions too. Judiasm has it's own laws and courts too and obviously has had a lot of influence on the judicial system in America. If it's getting pre-emptive and you don't want the shit overturned, do it fairly across the board. Don't just single out Islam and international law.
I especially like that they are putting a stop to international law considerations.
True - there are rabbinical courts and all sorts of crap in NY
-
OK FYI to all of the arm chair attorneys out there-- Rabbinical law is never allowed to supersede State or Federal Law ever. A rabbi can only intervene in matters of marriage, money and shit like that. The rabbi can't order that someone be stoned to death for cheating on their wife, or that someone can have a limb chopped off for stealing. That in essence is what the people in Oklahoma are trying to stop dead in its tracks before some whack job liberal activist judge can even entertain such lunacy.
Female circumscision, sexual abuse, domestic violence and other horrors enacted among females by Sharia law are also issues that are important here.
And BTW international law has absolutely NO bearing in American courts with respect to crimes committed in this country. There is no "Choice of Law" entertained in American court rooms regarding the penal code beyond what jurisdiction inside the United States has the authority to prosecute. There is no shot in hell a judge would one day decide to apply Nigerian law in a murder case in Kentucky. That's not the way the law works. International law is far more important in matters of contract, business disputes and corporate law.-- But that's another lesson for another time kiddies.
For anyone interested in the sheer lunacy of applying international law in American court rooms, look up the latest lawsuit that was brought as a class action against several corporations that did business in South Africa during Apartheid. Using the Alien Tort Claims act South African citizens decided to sue companies like IBM etc. for hundreds of billions of dollars based on the premise that by trading with the Apartheid regime, IBM made it easier for the atrocities and injustices to occur against black south Africans. It is really a fascinating case, and good for a laugh if you know anything about law or the US constitution.
Of course, CAIR would sue to prevent such measures because they are the Propaganda and political arm of a multitude of terrorist organizations that are funded by the Saudis and other affiliated scum.
-
The problem with this is NAFTA and various other free trade agreement, not to mention membership in the WTO has already made the USA as well as other nations subject to international laws that do indeed supercede national and state / provincial ones. :-\ I think the horses left the barn a long time ago.
There's this little thing called the "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution that says you have no idea what you're talking about. Funny how uninformed you are, especially considering your entire life revolves around every little going on in this country.
Sorry, Miss Muslim, but you lose here. :-*
OK FYI to all of the arm chair attorneys out there-- Rabbinical law is never allowed to supersede State or Federal Law ever. A rabbi can only intervene in matters of marriage, money and shit like that. The rabbi can't order that someone be stoned to death for cheating on their wife, or that someone can have a limb chopped off for stealing. That in essence is what the people in Oklahoma are trying to stop dead in its tracks before some whack job liberal activist judge can even entertain such lunacy.
Female circumscision, sexual abuse, domestic violence and other horrors enacted among females by Sharia law are also issues that are important here.
And BTW international law has absolutely NO bearing in American courts with respect to crimes committed in this country. There is no "Choice of Law" entertained in American court rooms regarding the penal code beyond what jurisdiction inside the United States has the authority to prosecute. There is no shot in hell a judge would one day decide to apply Nigerian law in a murder case in Kentucky. That's not the way the law works. International law is far more important in matters of contract, business disputes and corporate law.-- But that's another lesson for another time kiddies.
For anyone interested in the sheer lunacy of applying international law in American court rooms, look up the latest lawsuit that was brought as a class action against several corporations that did business in South Africa during Apartheid. Using the Alien Tort Claims act South African citizens decided to sue companies like IBM etc. for hundreds of billions of dollars based on the premise that by trading with the Apartheid regime, IBM made it easier for the atrocities and injustices to occur against black south Africans. It is really a fascinating case, and good for a laugh if you know anything about law or the US constitution.
Of course, CAIR would sue to prevent such measures because they are the Propaganda and political arm of a multitude of terrorist organizations that are funded by the Saudis and other affiliated scum.
Well said. It's funny because just a few weeks ago the Islamic supremacists in CAIR were saying that Sharia Law didn't matter. Funny how quickly their tune changed when they realized any chance of them implementing it in Oklahoma (setting the precedent for more states to follow) got axed.
And it's not like this is a pipe dream. We've already had a NJ judge reference the fact that Sharia Law implies that man isn't capable of raping of his wife.
-
OK FYI to all of the arm chair attorneys out there-- Rabbinical law is never allowed to supersede State or Federal Law ever.
no shit huh ::) who said it did? If that's what I was talking about, then name where Sharia law is allowed to supersede state/fed law....
-
no shit huh ::) who said it did? If that's what I was talking about, then name where Sharia law is allowed to supersede state/fed law....
A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.
Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.
According to the court record, the man’s wife — a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks — alleged:
“Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”
In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”
The woman’s lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com that Charles’ ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering “international law or Shariah Law” in their rulings.
“Those who don’t want the bill to pass say, ‘there’s really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?’” Donnelly said.
“Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said ‘Shariah law.’ But I think it’s indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope.”
Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband’s imam when he testified in the case.
The Appeals Court ruling notes, “The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere.
“However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife ‘like any animal.’ … he acknowledged that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape.”
Charles, a former New Jersey state senator, declined to comment on his ruling. The husband, who represented himself in court, remains unnamed, as does his ex-wife.
While the judge in the case did not specifically mention Islamic or Shariah law, Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.com, said he might as well have.
“This is a ruling that is strictly in line with Islamic law, which does indeed declare that a wife may not refuse her husband sex under virtually any circumstances,” Spencer said. “The only legal framework that would not consider marital rape to be sexual assault is Shariah.”
The husband in the case has been indicted on criminal charges and is expected to face trial in the fall.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/
This was overturned but it's still a perfect example of why this ban is needed. There's no reason to entertain anything preached in that book of death. ::)
-
so you found an idiot judge, they're a dime a dozen. This does not mean Sharia supercedes state/fed law--it does not and never has. If I dug enough, I could probably find a case where similar concessions were made for a jewish case.
Incase you two didn't notice, the topic is "preemptive" banning of Sharia and international law. I was merely saying that it would be wise to ban with equality and include other religions as well. Judaism is in a far better place to influence American law than Islam is, that's a fact. If you don't want laws like this overturned, it's wise to implement them in an equal fashion, that's also a fact. If you two bums don't like simple pure logic and common sense, that's your problem, not mine.
-
Killer response amidst your typical moral equivalence idiocy. ::)
Blah fucking blah. This thread isn't about Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Ahmadi, Sikh or whatever law. Stop derailing it. It's about the banning of SHARIA LAW.
I personally don't know anything about these Jewish courts. Do they legalize the raping and stoning of women, the marriage of children as young as 1 or the beheading of non-Jews? ???
-
^^^That NJ case is mind-blowing, when I first heard it I couldn't believe the Judge hadn't been put under at least some critical fire from the state...maybe he has by now, but he wasn't initially.
It seems so simple, as a judge what is your first duty? To uphold the U.S. constitution and your states constitution. If legislation or bench rulings interfere with that, then the call should be pretty easy.
so you found an idiot judge, they're a dime a dozen. This does not mean Sharia supercedes state/fed law--it does not and never has. If I dug enough, I could probably find a case where similar concessions were made for a jewish case.
Incase you two didn't notice, the topic is "preemptive" banning of Sharia and international law. I was merely saying that it would be wise to ban with equality and include other religions as well. Judaism is in a far better place to influence American law than Islam is, that's a fact. If you don't want laws like this overturned, it's wise to implement them in an equal fashion, that's also a fact. If you two bums don't like simple pure logic and common sense, that's your problem, not mine.
Not necessary, our laws are based off of Judaeo–Christian laws, banning that would make no sense.
-
^^^That NJ case is mind-blowing, when I first heard it I couldn't believe the Judge hadn't been put under at least some critical fire from the state...maybe he has by now, but he wasn't initially.
It seems so simple, as a judge what is your first duty? To uphold the U.S. constitution and your states constitution. If legislation or bench rulings interfere with that, then the call should be pretty easy.
Not necessary, our laws are based off of Judaeo–Christian laws, banning that would make no sense.
Don't worry. It's not a Hugo Chavez post without making a moral equivalence argument. This guy only sticks his nose into threads about Islam long enough to derail them onto Christianity/Judaism.
-
This thread isn't about Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Ahmadi, Sikh or whatever law.
I didn't derail anything you twit, I just said it would stand a better chance of staying law if it banned equally and gave an example of a religion in a better postion to influence American law. LOL that's it's not enough for you that I agree with preemptively banning Sharia, you have to find an agle to troll anyway... lol...
-
Don't worry. It's not a Hugo Chavez post without making a moral equivalence argument. This guy only sticks his nose into threads about Islam long enough to derail them onto Christianity/Judaism.
is that why I agreed that Sharia should be banned from influencing American law? ::)
-
Not necessary, our laws are based off of Judaeo–Christian laws, banning that would make no sense.
not entirely and I sure don't want Christianity dictating law today so there is some sense in it.
http://candst.tripod.com/histlaw.htm
Plus, it's not like the people had much of a choice during the many centuries Christianity ruled. On a return to that, thanks but no thanks..
-
There's this little thing called the "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution that says you have no idea what you're talking about.
please explain how that relates to nafta or wto, not being critical, just don't understand!
-
I didn't derail anything you twit, I just said it would stand a better chance of staying law if it banned equally and gave an example of a religion in a better postion to influence American law. LOL that's it's not enough for you that I agree with preemptively banning Sharia, you have to find an agle to troll anyway... lol...
Um Hello- What other religion wants to institute its own set of laws beyond the scope of the constitution and state law? Are Christians trying to promote the eye for an eye agenda? Of course not moron. Banning "all religious" legal doctrine is idiotic. Who gives a shit if some Orthodox Rabbi is going to divide property among some dead hebes family instead of a probate judge? How does that effect the rest of us? It doesn't. When the only religion that wants to basically segregate itself from the laws of the land with respect to criminal behavior and other barabric rituals it considers "holy", then it's an issue.
-
Um Hello- What other religion wants to institute its own set of laws beyond the scope of the constitution and state law? Are Christians trying to promote the eye for an eye agenda? Of course not moron. Banning "all religious" legal doctrine is idiotic. Who gives a shit if some Orthodox Rabbi is going to divide property among some dead hebes family instead of a probate judge? How does that effect the rest of us? It doesn't. When the only religion that wants to basically segregate itself from the laws of the land with respect to criminal behavior and other barabric rituals it considers "holy", then it's an issue.
bla bla bla... Keep twisting what I said.... Idiot.
-
Hugo= Sticks his fingers in his ears and goes LALALALALALA whenever someone points out he's wrong. You're setting a bad example to the children out there. One day, when they moderate an internet message board, they too will react in such an immature and haphazard fashion when members with superior knowledge and testosterone levels point out the error in their ways.
-
Order Blocks Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment
newsok.com ^ | November 8, 2010 | Tim Talley
________________________ ________________________ _______
A temporary restraining order has been issued to block a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the ruling this morning in Oklahoma City following a brief hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
________________________ ________________________ _________
IMPEACH THIS MARXIST BITCH!
-
Another far-left liberal pussy of a judge kowtows to CAIR and the other islamic supremacists.
Really, if Sharia Law isn't a big deal like these people say then why are they in full meltdown mode to get the ban repealed? "Moderate" Muslims once again exposing themselves for the supremacist scumbags that they are.
-
Another far-left liberal pussy of a judge kowtows to CAIR and the other islamic supremacists.
Really, if Sharia Law isn't a big deal like these people say then why are they in full meltdown mode to get the ban repealed? "Moderate" Muslims once again exposing themselves for the supremacist scumbags that they are.
Maybe because there should be no need to have a law like this to begin with? Judges already know they are not supposed to let laws influence their decision making which is why the NJ case was later appealed and won after that judge stupidly ruled in favor of the husband.
-
Maybe because there should be no need to have a law like this to begin with? Judges already know they are not supposed to let laws influence their decision making which is why the NJ case was later appealed and won after that judge stupidly ruled in favor of the husband.
Hahaha, you're still sniffing around these threads on Islam even after your embarrassing showing last week? Just stop.
If Sharia Law isn't a threat to our way of life here then these Muslims should have no problem banning it. Plain and simple. I'm not going to dignify you with any more of a response as we all saw that embarrassing display you put on.
Edit. Actually Robert Spencer summed it up pretty nicely today:
"It's interesting to note how quickly the Islamic supremacists have gone after this measure, while others dismiss it as unnecessary. If it were unnecessary, why go to the trouble to block it? If Muslims have no plans to bring the political and supremacist aspects of Sharia to the U.S., which would be the first time in history they have come to a country and not brought Sharia with them, then why bother opposing this measure at all? In fact, they should favor it. And the claim that this measure singles out Islam ignores -- not surprisingly -- the ways in which Islam is a political and social system in a way that Judaism and Christianity are not. It is interesting to note that in other contexts, Islamic supremacists proudly invoke that difference as evidence of the superiority of Islam over the other Religions of the Book. But in this instance, it is politically expedient for them to forget about all that."
Great point from a man who has spent decades studying Islam. Wish we could say the same for your buddies at Loonwatch. :-\
-
Hugo= Sticks his fingers in his ears and goes LALALALALALA whenever someone points out he's wrong. You're setting a bad example to the children out there. One day, when they moderate an internet message board, they too will react in such an immature and haphazard fashion when members with superior knowledge and testosterone levels point out the error in their ways.
Hmmmm... I wonder if this is a reference to this?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=354167.75 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=354167.75)
Wow, two whole pages have disappeared from that thread, ...including a rather sad & embarassing meltdown.
Or is it a reference to Hugo melting like a snowflake in hell, starting a thread, then moving it to the Z-Board
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=354683.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=354683.0)
-
Hahaha, you're still sniffing around these threads on Islam even after your embarrassing showing last week? Just stop.
If Sharia Law isn't a threat to our way of life here then these Muslims should have no problem banning it. Plain and simple. I'm not going to dignify you with any more of a response as we all saw that embarrassing display you put on.
The only embarrassing thing in that thread was your display of just how much of a trolling bigot you are. Because you are too obtuse to realize I wasn't defending Islam or Muslims, I'll spell it out for you in much simpler terms your adolescent mind can comprehend.
I was defending the idea of not lumping an entire group into one category, i.e. all Muslims being terrorist scum. Because you are so blinded by your obvious hate for Islam you totally glazed over that fact in a meager attempt to prove your completely invalid point. Nice try, for a mental midget. Try harder next time.
Do I agree with Muslims obvious intent to infiltrate Sharia Law into whatever country they migrate to? Hell no.
Do I agree with some of them who take the Qur'an for every word in the literal sense and everything that goes with that train of thought? Definitely not.
Do I believe Muslims should assimilate to whatever society they move into? Of course, just like every one else should.
Do I think they've done an adequate job of the last question? Of course not.
Now, hopefully that gets through whatever gray matter you have working up there and you'll shut the fuck up for once. Have a nice day!