So, remember when Oklahoma amended their constitution to make it illegal for judges to consider Sharia law in their rulings? Remember how thoroughly they were mocked by the media? Remember how a federal appeals court threw it out because they claimed nobody would ever even try to do that?
This will be appealed. I doubt the judge's ruling will stand.
There are thousands of judges across the land, this judge is just a state court trial judge. Some of our judges are inevitably going to make mistakes, and it's not terribly alarming unless it happens in an appellate court.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #006 This will be appealed. I doubt the judge's ruling will stand.
There are thousands of judges across the land, this judge is just a state court trial judge. Some of our judges are inevitably going to make mistakes, and it's not terribly alarming unless it happens in an appellate court.
Shrugging this off as a mistake seems kind of ridiculous. We're talking about the first amendment here. It's like, you know, kind of important for him to understand that.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Shrugging this off as a mistake seems kind of ridiculous.
Well, a mistake on the part of whoever made that judge a judge. Not a reasonable mistake on the law. It is troubling I agree but I wouldn't be too alarmed until you see an appellate court spouting similar reasoning.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Unless you're one of those classical liberalist types that thinks a lack of regulation leads to good things like the housing bubble.
The housing bubble was created, intentionally by the Federal Reserve. Try again.
Well, a mistake on the part of whoever made that judge a judge. Not a reasonable mistake on the law. It is troubling I agree but I wouldn't be too alarmed until you see an appellate court spouting similar reasoning.
Would you agree that given this decision, Oklahoma's decision to amend their constitution to prohibit judges looking to Sharia law is appropriate?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Nope. Somalia doesn't have no government, it has multiple factions claiming the authority of government. Somalia does not represent how free markets go wrong, because it never had free markets.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... From: Justin_Crossing | #005 if all you do is whine about the state of your country why don't you move Do you know of a freer country?
Try Sealand. Only four people live there. With your military background you should be able to overtake their regime and make it the great nation you want to live in.
-- For your SuperNiceDog. At least Kupo has class and doesn't MESSAGE the people -Dr Pizza
second of all, I was not saying Somalia represents the free market going wrong. I said it is more free by your definition which seems to be 'no government power'.
--
I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png
Would you agree that given this decision, Oklahoma's decision to amend their constitution to prohibit judges looking to Sharia law is appropriate?
I was going to say that I think Oklahoma's law was great, but now that I think it, it's a bit more complicated an issue that I thought before.
Do judges have free speech? If they do, how can we ban them from talking about sharia in their opinions? For example, say a judge was writing an opinion upholding a law banning same-sex marriage. He might have a sentence in there that reads something like, "Looking at legal codes throughout the course of human history, in such codes as the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Twelve Tables, the Code of Justinian, Sharia, and English Common Law, we find that marriage is only ever contemplated as between opposite sexes."
Would this reasoning be disallowed under Oklahoma law? It's fine to say that judges should consider nothing but the Constitution, statutes, and precedent, but the reality is that it's not so simple. If it was, we wouldn't need a judiciary because it would always be obvious what the law was. For example, the 4th Amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure. Well what on earth does unreasonable mean? If you were a judge, and you weren't allowed to use any external sources, such as common sense, custom, history, statistical evidence, etc. in your opinion, how could you write an opinion explaining your decision?
It's clear that external sources like common sense must be allowed. But then, why single out Sharia as something that cannot be cited?
It's very clearly established in US law that Sharia cannot be cited as binding law. We didn't need Oklahoma's amendment for that.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
His ruling didn't toss the case based on Sharia Law, he cited lack of evidence as the cause. Passing Oklahoma's amendment would have not done anything in this case.
EDIT: I'm not gonna say whether or not Sharia Law was what he actually was considering for that, just that because he didn't use it as grounds for anything in the trial legally speaking, the amendment would do nothing.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
Well, the only thing you can do about judges not following the law is to let an appellate court overrule them. I mean, if it were on the books that you couldn't mention sharia, this judge could still do it anyway.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I feel like the whole "if you don't like it you can just move" may quite possibly be the one fallacious argument I've refuted most often on this board.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... I feel like the whole "if you don't like it you can just move" may quite possibly be the one fallacious argument I've refuted most often on this board.
it's not falatious at all! You can move. I
-- For your SuperNiceDog. At least Kupo has class and doesn't MESSAGE the people -Dr Pizza
The average citizen is not nearly equipped with the resources to do either of those things, but they are both technically possible, especially for the rich.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... I think they're about similar though.
The average citizen is not nearly equipped with the resources to do either of those things, but they are both technically possible, especially for the rich.
Moving isn't that hard. I've lived in five different cities in two different countries.
Let's put it this way: I think the average Mexican citizen has fewer resources than you, yet several of them manage to move to America. What's your excuse?
On the other hand, I don't know any Mexican citizens who own oil companies. Nor am I likely to ever have the means to own an oil company, for that matter.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Let's put it this way: I think the average Mexican citizen has fewer resources than you, yet several of them manage to move to America. What's your excuse?
Well, assuming you're ONLY talking strictly about legal immigration, we've been over this many times before.
The United States is unique in its decision to tax the income of citizens no matter where they live. To escape the United States tax burden, you can't just move, you have to renounce your citizenship, which is incredibly costly, burdensome, and time-consuming.
Also, nearly every other nation in the world has MUCH stricter immigration restrictions than the US does. We're one of the easiest countries in the world to gain citizenship of, and basically the hardest to get rid of it.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/