Thread: In The USA, Anti-Sharia Laws Are Unconstitutional [W:327]

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

Bold: Unfortenately some court judges have refered to things like Sharia Law when deciding some cases. I think that that is what many state legislatures are trying to stop.

Shariah Law and American State Courts

Then they need to be thrown off the bench. It's high time this country start putting its foot up the asses of court judges who misuse their positions of power. We pass laws in this country to govern ourselves, we don't use the law of other countries. If that were true what would we need our government for.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

I agree with this completely. The states seem to be wasting time and money. If "Sharia" law violates the USSC or state laws, that alone would be sufficient to strike it down

True. But as you're probably aware, that's not generally where either Sharia or any other religious law shows up in our courts. Usually it's referred to in contractual matters. If judges are willing and able to apply (e.g.) Cannon, and Talmudic law to the extent that they're relevant to contractual analysis, there's no good reason they shouldn't also do so with Sharia. To treat religious law disparately in court is, obviously, a legitimate constitutional issue.

Originally Posted by American

Then they need to be thrown off the bench. It's high time this country start putting its foot up the asses of court judges who misuse their positions of power. We pass laws in this country to govern ourselves, we don't use the law of other countries. If that were true what would we need our government for.

I agree whole heartedly.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

True. But as you're probably aware, that's not generally where either Sharia or any other religious law shows up in our courts. Usually it's referred to in contractual matters. If judges are willing and able to apply (e.g.) Cannon, and Talmudic law to the extent that they're relevant to contractual analysis, there's no good reason they shouldn't also do so with Sharia. To treat religious law disparately in court is, obviously, a legitimate constitutional issue.

No private contract is valid if it breaks or tries to supersede our laws.

Originally Posted by Luna Tick

Is there a danger that we're going to become an Islamic dictatorship?

No immenent danger no. But there is evidence that judges have ruled based on Sharia law. I gave a link for evidence in post #7.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

No private contract is valid if it breaks or tries to supersede our laws.

Reference to any other code informing a decision is always subject to the law of the land. In that light, banning the use of Sharia, but not others, is discriminatory.

Originally Posted by Manc Skipper

Reference to any other code informing a decision is always subject to the law of the land. In that light, banning the use of Sharia, but not others, is discriminatory.

So ban the others to.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

No immenent danger no. But there is evidence that judges have ruled based on Sharia law. I gave a link for evidence in post #7.

I'll look then.

To me, if a judge or justice rules based on non-American law (excl common law), that is bad behavior and reason to impeach them. That means people like Ginsberg get thrown out on her skinny, wrinkled-up ass.

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive » Justice Ginsburg on Using Foreign and International Law in Constitutional Adjudication

Originally Posted by Pinkie

I'm not sure. "Facts" are certainly always welcome in state legal proceedings, and some "facts" are religious in nature. For example, whether a baby was baptized as a Catholic may have some bearing if one litigant presses the other in a divorce to raise the kids in that faith. Whether a dead person had the presence of mind to request the Last Rites might be some evidence of his or her competence in a will contest. Etc. I have no doubt, Sharia Law touches on such matters as births and deaths, and in that way, could enter the courtroom.

OTOH, if parents from "the old country" (and there are many all over Planet Earth) sought to annul a daughter's marriage against her will because they had not chosen her spouse for her, I doubt such a case would ever get heard in any state court in the US.

Catholic religious law, which is the only one I know much about, has no provision in it for any sort of arbitration. But Jewish and Islamic laws both do. If you and I are both devote Jews who enter a contract and agree within it to have any disputes heard before rabbis rather than a state court judge, can you enforce that against me?

I don't know. If we'd agreed to civil arbitration, that would be enforcable. My guess is sometimes yes, sometimes no....a heavy showing that such a proceeding would be so grossly unfair to me as to offend justice might allow me to escape into state court. Say, if you were a multimillionaire who was building a new temple and I was already embroiled in a separate dispute with the rabbis.

The only place in the world I know where someone might could provide some ideas is Israel, where it is becoming more common to litigate (so to speak) who is and is not a Jew. Among other rights, any Jew anywhere has a "right of return", meaning that Israel must allow that person to emigrate there...so it's not simply "religious" rights that can be affected.

In the US, I think the bottom line is that certain facts about the litigants' religious beliefs have always been admissable. If one or more such litigants were Islamic, Sharia Law would be of as much (or as little) evidentiary value as the facts of any other religious person's life have always been.

But certainly no moreso.

To pick and choose 'acceptable' religious arguments, from a religious "code" that contains 'unacceptable' arguments (killing of infidels or honor killings of family members) is pushing it a bit. Can one be sued for a 'voodoo' curse causing harm? It gets pretty dicy when we try to go there, IMHO. Allowing things like "conscientous objector" status and exemptions from SS taxation, but disallowing LSD and honor killing, is getting into some very weird religious/legal ground. Makes the abortion argument look a bit tame. ;-)