The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has let stand a restraining order that blocks implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution prohibiting the courts in that state from using or considering International law or Islamic or Sharia law in reaching decisions.
From the Wall Street Journal:
An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.
The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70% of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.
Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.
The amendment read, in part: "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."
Backers argued that the amendment intended to ban all religious laws, that Islamic law was merely named as an example and that it wasn't meant as a specific attack on Muslims. The court disagreed.
The appeals court ruled only on the issuance of the restraining order and not on the law itself. However the standard in Federal Courts for the issuance of such an order is a showing that the Plaintiff will probably succeed in their litigation.
So the handwriting is on the wall, at least for the trial court.
Oklahoma has a couple of options. It can try to appeal the ruling of the Tenth Circuit to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may or may not hear the appeal. In the meanwhile, until the Supremes decide to hear the case, if they do, the restraining order remains in place.
Oklahoma could just allow the restraining order to remain in place and go forward with a trial on the merits of the case. Since the judge has pretty much indicated what she thinks, they can then appeal the verdict to the Tenth Circuit and hope for a better result then.
Of course the real answer might be to strip Federal Court of their power to hear this case.
Permalink Reply by KL Rochester on Preach This: Legalization of the Separation of Church and State!
On many fronts Shari Law is diametrically opposed to the Constitution of the United States of America. I.) There is no freedom of religion under Shari. Only Islam is freely allowed, any others are banned except Christianity and Judaism. These two by dihimitude are taxed, and then they are systematically burned out and not rebuilt, because it is Allah’s will. Even if a free person in a Shari Law State (someone of Muslim-Islamic ancestry) professes to Christianity they are executed by stoning or decapitation. II.) There is no freedom of speech under Shari. Criticize or speak anything considered pro-con about the one and only--last of the prophets Mohammad-the-pedophile and you are executed by stoning or decapitation. IV.) There is no Right (under Shari) to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects. Having in your possession what you have just read, can trigger a complaint where by you will be dragged before a Shari court tried and punished with the pain of stoning or decapitation. XI.) The Judicial power of Shari Law can be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against any of the United States by Citizens of another Islamic/Muslim/Shari Law State. These are just a few of my favorite things. Others you may have heard include honor killings (just one or even the whole family), female genital mutilation, women and girls are considered as property to the man, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
We have not played Cowboys and Muslims, yet!
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
