Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

  1. #1
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  2. #2
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    All this anti-Sharia nonsense is just transparent bigotry. Muslims make up 0.3% of the population of the US. Obviously Sharia law is never going to take root in our legal system. It's just an excuse for them to express their hatred of Muslims.

  3. #3
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Hopefully this goes all the way to the SC and they rules in favor of Oklahoma's law banning judges from citing religious and Foreign laws.Courts should not recognize foreign laws and religious laws. If someone wants to be buried according to some religious custom then leave specific details on it in a will.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 01-11-12 at 06:45 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #4
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Hopefully this goes all the way to the SC and they rules in favor of Oklahoma's law banning judges from citing religious and Forign laws.Courts should not recognize foreign laws and religious laws.
    That isn't how courts work. It isn't like courts just get confused and end up applying the law of some other country when they're supposed to apply US law... Obviously... Foreign or religious law, or really any kind of rule or regulation anywhere, comes up in court for one of three reasons:

    1) US law incorporates the common law that existed prior to the constitution. Mostly that means British Common law. So, unless a court or the legislature has reversed a precedent, a decision of an old British court could still be binding. Generally speaking, these are non-controversial common sense things that the courts and legislature have never had a reason to reverse. One area where it is sometimes more of an issue is, for example, that in a civil trial you are entitled to a jury if it was a case that would have gone to a common law court back in the founder's time, but not if it would have gone to a court of equity back then. So, figuring out if somebody has a jury trial sometimes goes back to an analysis of English law from the time.

    2) The case, or some element of the case, is under some other set of rules than US law. Courts everywhere have the power to resolve many kinds of disputes that are governed by other law. For example, maybe a corporation here and a corporation in Spain make a contract and specify that any disputes should be resolved under a particular trade treaty. A US court can decide the case, but they need to apply the rules of that treaty to do it.

    3) When a court encounters a legal question that hasn't been decisively addressed by US courts, or when they encounter something that they think US courts resolved incorrectly, they look at how other courts elsewhere have dealt with the issue. Those rulings from other countries don't have legal effect here of course, but if the logic behind them is sound they certainly have persuasive significance. For example, say that a corporation bought artificial snow making services from another corporation for their ski resort. Maybe the ski resort is suing the snow maker claiming that what they delivered was really "ice" rather than "snow". Maybe there isn't any US case that really delves into the difference, but there is a Canadian case where the court pulled in tons of experts and did a bunch of analysis and came up with a really logical way to distinguish the two. A smart court certainly would consider that interpretation by the Canadian court.

  5. #5
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That isn't how courts work. It isn't like courts just get confused and end up applying the law of some other country when they're supposed to apply US law... Obviously... Foreign or religious law, or really any kind of rule or regulation anywhere, comes up in court for one of three reasons:

    1) US law incorporates the common law that existed prior to the constitution. Mostly that means British Common law. So, unless a court or the legislature has reversed a precedent, a decision of an old British court could still be binding. Generally speaking, these are non-controversial common sense things that the courts and legislature have never had a reason to reverse. One area where it is sometimes more of an issue is, for example, that in a civil trial you are entitled to a jury if it was a case that would have gone to a common law court back in the founder's time, but not if it would have gone to a court of equity back then. So, figuring out if somebody has a jury trial sometimes goes back to an analysis of English law from the time.

    2) The case, or some element of the case, is under some other set of rules than US law. Courts everywhere have the power to resolve many kinds of disputes that are governed by other law. For example, maybe a corporation here and a corporation in Spain make a contract and specify that any disputes should be resolved under a particular trade treaty. A US court can decide the case, but they need to apply the rules of that treaty to do it.

    3) When a court encounters a legal question that hasn't been decisively addressed by US courts, or when they encounter something that they think US courts resolved incorrectly, they look at how other courts elsewhere have dealt with the issue. Those rulings from other countries don't have legal effect here of course, but if the logic behind them is sound they certainly have persuasive significance. For example, say that a corporation bought artificial snow making services from another corporation for their ski resort. Maybe the ski resort is suing the snow maker claiming that what they delivered was really "ice" rather than "snow". Maybe there isn't any US case that really delves into the difference, but there is a Canadian case where the court pulled in tons of experts and did a bunch of analysis and came up with a really logical way to distinguish the two. A smart court certainly would consider that interpretation by the Canadian court.
    No American court should ever cite foreign laws period. If there are issues with a law then the elected officials in the US who who authored the law should be consulted or if they are dead then their notes, writings or reasons why the law was enacted should be consulted.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #6
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    No American court should ever cite foreign laws period. If there are issues with a law then the elected officials in the US who who authored the law should be consulted or if they are dead then their notes, writings or reasons why the law was enacted should be consulted.
    That doesn't make sense. What should a court do when it encounters any of those three situations? Are you saying it should just ignore terms in contracts specifying which system of law they should be resolved under? Or that we should ignore the constitutionally binding common law from before the founding? Or that courts should just ignore solutions to legal questions if they came from outside the US? Why would we do any of those things? That would be silly.

    Regardless, you seem to be assuming that we're a civil law country like the European countries. We aren't. We're a common law country. A civil law country is one that tries to pin down every single possible detail in the statutes. They typically have hundreds of times as many pages of laws as common law countries as a result. They need to be radically more detailed and to try to work through every possible context in which a law might be applied. A common law country, like the US, takes a different approach. The statutes spell out the high level principles, the courts work out the details, and the interpretations of the courts are binding on future courts. We've been a common law country since the founding. To try to convert over to a civil law system would essentially require replacing our entire system of laws from the ground up.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Do legislators in these backwards bigoted states not own a copy of the U.S. Constitution?

    I guess Obama should make sure there's money in the federal budget to send a copy of the U.S. Constitution to some of these governors and legislators.

  8. #8
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    No American court should ever cite foreign laws period. If there are issues with a law then the elected officials in the US who who authored the law should be consulted or if they are dead then their notes, writings or reasons why the law was enacted should be consulted.
    That's simply not possible, nor is it either just or rational. Partially for the reasons cited in the post to which you're responding, partially because quite a lot of people do things like enter into contracts stipulating that, say, Cannon law, or Judaic law will be used in interpreting the language (or what have you). There's no earthly reason not to take these things into consideration besides bigotry and sheer bloody-mindedness. It has no real impact on the nature or substance of our legal system, and it's useful to the parties involved.

  9. #9
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    No American court should ever cite foreign laws period.
    I don't necessarily agree.

    A judge ought to consider whatever law is relevant over the matter being considered. Normally, an American judge would be presiding over a matter that falls entirely under American law, and so should only consider that law. I don't know how unusual it would be for an American judge to be presiding over a case that falls under the jurisdiction of any foreign laws, but in any such case, that judge should certainly take those laws into account.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  10. #10
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    I don't know how unusual it would be for an American judge to be presiding over a case that falls under the jurisdiction of any foreign laws
    Not very unusual. Most contracts between companies from different countries specify that they are governed either by the law of one of the countries or by some instrument of international law. That's probably the most common one, but international law or foreign law comes up in a lot of circumstances. For example, if you have a couple and one of them claims they were married in Canada and the other claims they were never officially married, resolving it would require an analysis of Canadian marriage law.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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