• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

People also sue in US court under principles of international treaties and the international laws that stem therefrom...

(just throwing in another example)
 
People also sue in US court under principles of international treaties and the international laws that stem therefrom...

(just throwing in another example)

Yes and no. You can only sue somebody in US court based on a US law. International law comes into it secondarily. For example, if somebody breaches a contract with you and the contract says it is governed by international law, you can sue in the US because breaching a contract is a violation of US law, but then the actual substance of the case is determined by international law. But, if international law just said "from here on out it is illegal to wear green" you couldn't sue people in US courts for wearing green because there would be no cause of action.

That said, many of the treaties the US has signed are now in fact US law. Either they are self executing, so just by ratifying them they because US law, or the legislature actively passed laws to execute the treaties. Not all of them though. For example, we violate the international declaration of human rights constantly, but courts have found that although we ratified it, it is not self executing, so you can't sue under it in US court. Also, we have a statute called the Alien Tort Statute that says that you can sue a non-citizen that is in the US for torts they committed that violate international law.

So it's kind of like you need a hook in US law to allow you to sue in the first place, but once you have that, the actual case is often determined by applying international 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.

How can you know that for a fact? Things change in America. For example, our grandparents would not have thought the US ethnic population would have shifted to what it is today.
Our laws are our laws. Why consider others.

It still amazes me if someone dislikes something the bigotry card or race card is played. There could be other reasons for not liking 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.
Are blue states embracing Sharia law?
 
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 substantial portion of our laws that were enacted in the first century of this country's existence were lifted directly from English common law. American law did not represent a substantial departure from English law, but rather a continuation with a few different ground rules (the constitution and bill of rights). Our laws have diverged somewhat since then, but it is completely impossible to divorce American law from its English roots.

Beat your chest with false patriotism (really just arrogance) all you like, but learn about the law before you make absurd criticisms about it.

As to the nonsense about Sharia law. The only way that Sharia principals can be adopted into American law is either within a contract, or within arbitration. And both of those require mutual consent from the various parties to apply. There is no way within American law for a sudden application of Sharia principals to anyone who does not agree to it. It simply doesn't work that way. Take your bigotry somewhere else.
 
How can you know that for a fact? Things change in America. For example, our grandparents would not have thought the US ethnic population would have shifted to what it is today.
Our laws are our laws. Why consider others.

It still amazes me if someone dislikes something the bigotry card or race card is played. There could be other reasons for not liking Shariah law.

zzzz the standard Republican "I'm not a bigot, I'm just too stupid to understand that what I am doing it bigotry" defense... Does that ever work on anybody?

I really don't care whether their bigotry was created by a flat out desire to harm people that are different from them, by a desire to make themselves feel superior, or by incomprehensibly dense ignorance. Whatever their problem is, it need to be rooted out and dealt with.
 
Yes and no. You can only sue somebody in US court based on a US law. International law comes into it secondarily. For example, if somebody breaches a contract with you and the contract says it is governed by international law, you can sue in the US because breaching a contract is a violation of US law, but then the actual substance of the case is determined by international law. But, if international law just said "from here on out it is illegal to wear green" you couldn't sue people in US courts for wearing green because there would be no cause of action.

That said, many of the treaties the US has signed are now in fact US law. Either they are self executing, so just by ratifying them they because US law, or the legislature actively passed laws to execute the treaties. Not all of them though. For example, we violate the international declaration of human rights constantly, but courts have found that although we ratified it, it is not self executing, so you can't sue under it in US court. Also, we have a statute called the Alien Tort Statute that says that you can sue a non-citizen that is in the US for torts they committed that violate international law.

So it's kind of like you need a hook in US law to allow you to sue in the first place, but once you have that, the actual case is often determined by applying international law.

I should have been more clear about what I meant. Obviously you cannot normally sue someone directly in US court under the provisions of international law. What I meant is that there are contexts in which US courts are used as a vehicle for American citizens to enforce actions against foreigners and foreign assets due to provisions of treaties and other international law bodies. I'd have to look up the details (it's been a while since I took international public law in law school, and I seem to have erased my notes that far back), but there are ways that that happens. The net effect is that foreign bodies of law have an impact on the manner in which a US court makes its decision.

Similarly, in the context of human rights law, we have the Alien Torts Act, which allows an alien to bring a civil action in US court for a violation of various treaties and the law of nations. Obviously this has the effect of causing a US court to address the principles of legal bodies outside of US law.
 
I should have been more clear about what I meant. Obviously you cannot normally sue someone directly in US court under the provisions of international law.

Yeah, you got it. I just wanted that to be clear so the wingnuts on here didn't run around screaming about how the UN is taking over the world or whatever. :)
 
zzzz the standard Republican "I'm not a bigot, I'm just too stupid to understand that what I am doing it bigotry" defense... Does that ever work on anybody?

I really don't care whether their bigotry was created by a flat out desire to harm people that are different from them, by a desire to make themselves feel superior, or by incomprehensibly dense ignorance. Whatever their problem is, it need to be rooted out and dealt with.

and its the same old liberal defense. they don't agree with me so they must be a bigot.
 
and its the same old liberal defense. they don't agree with me so they must be a bigot.

It isn't really debatable whether a law that gives lower status to one religion than other religions is bigotry. Of course it is. That doesn't require any speculation or anything, that's just bigotry on its face.
 
so as long as the exercise of it does not infringe upon the rights of others (including those in contract, you cannot abdicate your rights).

Can you give an example of what you mean with contracts? It seems to me that you can give up rights in contracts. For example, an non-disclosure agreement is giving up your right to free speech in an area. You can't contract to do something illegal- like establish an indentured servitude relationship- but I don't think that is the same thing as saying you can't contract away your rights generally. In some ways, that is the whole point of a contract- constraining the things the parties are allowed to do more narrowly than they are by default.
 
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.
Uh, it's more like 0.8% muslims, and their numbers are projected to double within the next 20 years. Stop making sh*t up and downplaying the truth.
 
A good ruling. There is no justification for attacking Muslims in this matter.

The precedent of U.S. law is set by our judges. If a new precedent is proposed, then it must be considered by the courts - and that includes anything from Shariah law. It must be weighed against our Constitution and other laws. What OK tried to do was bypass due process by banning Shariah law before its individual aspects could be evaluated in various court cases.

Shariah law is not going to take root in the U.S. There is simply no impetus for it. However, whitewashing a very large set of foreign laws in this way is not the way our court system works. Each aspect is evaluated for its merits, and that's that.
 
Uh, it's more like 0.8% muslims, and their numbers are projected to double within the next 20 years. Stop making sh*t up and downplaying the truth.

No, according to the census, there are 1,349,000 Muslims in the US. Out of 311 million people, so that is 0.4%. And the majority of Muslims worldwide oppose basing a government on Sharia. So, at the most, that is 0.2% of the country that wants to replace the constitution with a new system based on Sharia law.

So, how close to the number they need does that put them? In order to amend the constitution you need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate. So far, there is 1 Muslim in the House and he would never support anything like a theocracy, and zero Muslims in the senate. You also need a majority in 3/4 of the states. So far I don't think Muslims make up more than 2% in any state, so Muslims that believe we should replace the constitution with Sharia law would be 1% even in the most Muslim states...

So yeah...
 
Back
Top Bottom