Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by Night Strike »

A popular new law that bars Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic law, or Shariah, when deciding cases was put on hold Monday after a prominent Muslim in the state won a temporary restraining order in federal court.

Two state legislators were quick to blast the judge's ruling and the Oklahoma attorney general, who they said did not stand up to support the new law.

U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange ruled that the measure, which passed by a large margin in last Tuesday's elections, would be suspended until a hearing on Nov. 22, when she will listen to arguments on whether the court's temporary injunction should become permanent.

"Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities," said Muneer Awad, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, who filed the suit last Thursday, claiming the law violated his constitutional rights.

"We are humbled by this opportunity to show our fellow Oklahomans that Muslims are their neighbors and that we are committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and promoting the benefits of a pluralistic society," Awad said.

Shariah is found in the Koran and is the basis of law in most Islamic countries, though its implementation varies widely. It has been used in Iran and Somalia, among other places, to condone harsh punishments like amputations and stoning.

Supporters of the Oklahoma ballot initiative, which passed with 70 percent of the vote, would not comment on the impact of the ruling. But state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who co-authored the measure, charged that the judge ruled as she did because the state’s attorney general, Drew Edmondson, failed to respond to the suit.

“The attorney general failed to file a response,” Sykes said. “I am afraid that this might get written in stone that shouldn’t be because the attorney general is leaving and a new one is coming in.”

Calls to Edmondson’s office were not returned.

Oklahoma state Rep. Rex Duncan, who co-sponsored the bill, said he hadn’t seen the judge's written ruling yet, but he was disappointed that “her words from the bench indicated she had completely embraced the plaintiff’s arguments.”

“They were pretty extraordinary statements from the judge,” he said.

Duncan and Sykes both said the state should have challenged whether Awad had the standing to bring the case.

“As far as we know, he flew into here from Georgia just to make the case," Duncan said. "We don’t think he is an Oklahoma resident or plans to stay. We don’t think he had standing.”

Duncan and others who pushed for the measure argued that the ban “will constitute a pre-emptive strike against Shariah law coming to Oklahoma." He said England has embraced 85 Shariah law courts and warned voters that "while Oklahoma is still able to defend itself against this sort of hideous invasion, we should do so."

Opponents argued that the measure was unnecessary because state judges have no reason to rely on Islamic law. Most of the state’s newspapers opposed the measure.

At an impromptu news conference following Monday's ruling, CAIR officials called on the sponsors of the ballot measure to repudiate hate messages they said have been received by Muslim institutions in Oklahoma following the law's passage.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/oklahomas-ban-shariah-law-blocked-critics-say-attorney-general-failed-respond/

It's amazing how a simple law reaffirming the idea that Oklahoma courts must follow US law can be stopped by a single judge. How could this possibly be infringing upon religion? Or are Muslims exempt from following US laws in favor of Shariah Law? I know that's what some radicals in this nation want, along with the terrorists who cite our failures to follow Shariah Law as one of their reasons for attacking us. I wonder what this judge is basing her opinions on if she's wanting to use non-US laws. Do we citizens no longer have the right to define our judicial system? If not, talk about a judiciary that can no longer be controlled.

In other news, notice how the extremist group CAIR was also involved in this injunction? They're the same group that coerced NPR to fire Juan Williams.
Image
User avatar
SultanOfSurreal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by SultanOfSurreal »

the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.

and then of course this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oklahoma-banned-ten-commandments-sharia-law/

Residents in Oklahoma thought they were voting to ban Sharia law last Tuesday but it turns out that the new constitutional amendment may also extend to the Ten Commandments.

The Oklahoma ballot measure orders judges not to consider Islamic or international law when deciding cases.

But Rick Tepker, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma School of Law believes the "Save Our State" constitutional amendment may have the unwanted side effect of preventing judges from referencing the Ten Commandments. Tepker called the measure "a mess."

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he told CNN. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by Night Strike »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.


Cases concerning international entities can not be heard by state courts by definition, so that's a moot point. Believe it or not, I'm perfectly fine with the judges not being able to cite the Ten Commandments as they shouldn't be anyway. If it's not written into US or state law or documents, then it shouldn't be considered in our courts. The idea that laws of other nations should have bearing in our courts is astounding.
Image
User avatar
HapSmo19
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Willamette Valley

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by HapSmo19 »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.


Actually, YOU are the stupidest thing ever and nothing short of insane.
User avatar
notyou2
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Gender: Male
Location: In the here and now

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by notyou2 »

The question begs to be asked.....................................................................Nightstrike, are you a racist?



Also, what was the name of that guy that committed the largest terrorist act in Oklahoma history?
Image
patches70
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by patches70 »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.



Considering that a greater percentage of people living on the planet are under the thumb and laws of tyrants, dictators and totalitarian regimes, I don't think the US needs to be looking to other countries in how we approach the law. Globalism is beginning to crack under the strain of Ethno-Nationalism.

Our Founding Fathers warned us to stay out of other countries affairs and to be careful to not adopt their ways for our own. They were talking primarily about the Europeans of course, but it is sound enough advice today as well.


And, for me personally, I will be damned if I ever allow myself or my family to be forced to live under Sharia law or any semblance of it.
User avatar
SultanOfSurreal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by SultanOfSurreal »

HapSmo19 wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.


Actually, YOU are the stupidest thing ever and nothing short of insane.


ohhhh shiiiiiiiit

Image
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Night Strike wrote:
It's amazing how a simple law reaffirming the idea that Oklahoma courts must follow US law can be stopped by a single judge. How could this possibly be infringing upon religion? Or are Muslims exempt from following US laws in favor of Shariah Law?

No, you have this exactly backwards.

The truth is that most courts DO honor religious laws/agreements in many cases whenever it does not conflict with US law. For example, the Torah, Roman Catholic and Protestant Doctrines, etc may be considered for some divorce cases. This would place Muslim law below other religions in that regard.

It could also potentially impact trade negotiations and deals in countries where other laws are applied.
bedub1
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by bedub1 »

I think they are saying "just cause something is okay under that religious 'law' doesn't mean it's okay even if it violates US law". And also from the flip side "just because your religious 'law' says something is bad, doesn't mean us consitution law has to say it's bad too."

State courts follow state laws and federal laws. They don't follow laws of religious organizations.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by PLAYER57832 »

bedub1 wrote:State courts follow state laws and federal laws. They don't follow laws of religious organizations.

Actually, they do follow religious laws at times, but just second to state law.
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by Night Strike »

notyou2 wrote:The question begs to be asked.....................................................................Nightstrike, are you a racist?


Since your definition of racist has the position that Shariah Law must not be present in American Law, then I will proudly claim to be a racist using your definitions. :roll: :roll:

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, you have this exactly backwards.

The truth is that most courts DO honor religious laws/agreements in many cases whenever it does not conflict with US law. For example, the Torah, Roman Catholic and Protestant Doctrines, etc may be considered for some divorce cases. This would place Muslim law below other religions in that regard.

It could also potentially impact trade negotiations and deals in countries where other laws are applied.


So do you want to find 3 other witnesses if your husband were to have an affair just so you could get a divorce from him (if you did not wish to reconcile with him)?
Image
User avatar
Juan_Bottom
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by Juan_Bottom »

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHAOAOaoOAOAaoaoaOAHAOAOahOAAAOaa

Oklahoma courts can consider Biblical Law when ruling, but not Islamic law. And Nightstrike is arguing that that is ok... or is he saying that all religious law should be thrown out?
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by Night Strike »

Juan_Bottom wrote:WHOA WHOA WHOA WHAOAOaoOAOAaoaoaOAHAOAOahOAAAOaa

Oklahoma courts can consider Biblical Law when ruling, but not Islamic law. And Nightstrike is arguing that that is ok... or is he saying that all religious law should be thrown out?


I actually said all laws that are not codified in the US should not be considered, but the Oklahoma constitutional amendment specifically included Shariah and International Laws.
Image
User avatar
Juan_Bottom
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by Juan_Bottom »

Thanks, I just needed that cleared up.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Night Strike wrote:
notyou2 wrote:The question begs to be asked.....................................................................Nightstrike, are you a racist?


Since your definition of racist has the position that Shariah Law must not be present in American Law, then I will proudly claim to be a racist using your definitions. :roll: :roll:

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, you have this exactly backwards.

The truth is that most courts DO honor religious laws/agreements in many cases whenever it does not conflict with US law. For example, the Torah, Roman Catholic and Protestant Doctrines, etc may be considered for some divorce cases. This would place Muslim law below other religions in that regard.

It could also potentially impact trade negotiations and deals in countries where other laws are applied.


So do you want to find 3 other witnesses if your husband were to have an affair just so you could get a divorce from him (if you did not wish to reconcile with him)?

In truth, my FIRST reaction, when I FIRST heard this law was to say "great!". But then I stopped and listened to the many attorneys who spoke up about it.

As I said above, state law absolutely takes precedence whenever there is a question or challenge. But, according to the legal experts I have heard discuss this, ALL religious agreements have some legal standing when the participants have each agreed under the religious law. Within the US, that ONLY applies to cases where there is no conflict with existing statutes.

More importantly, though, companies often do business in countries that do honor religious law as part of their civil statutes. As the saying goes "when in Rome....". If companies are going to do business in these countries, they cannot be limited by this law. Now, on that part, I do think there might need to be some kind of provision, but it should be a UNITED STATES law, something considered fully and implemented to apply to all US companies, not just in one state.

Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:WHOA WHOA WHOA WHAOAOaoOAOAaoaoaOAHAOAOahOAAAOaa

Oklahoma courts can consider Biblical Law when ruling, but not Islamic law. And Nightstrike is arguing that that is ok... or is he saying that all religious law should be thrown out?


I actually said all laws that are not codified in the US should not be considered, but the Oklahoma constitutional amendment specifically included Shariah and International Laws.

That's one of the many problems. If this law specified ALL religious law, it might be different. (might??), but by singling out just Islamic law, it is religious discrimination.

Furthermore, moderate Islamic law is not the same as the very strict laws we hear about in some countries. No one is going to start cutting off people's hands or stoning anyone in the US. Nor, do I believe the US would support a company that took an active role in such rulings. However, many other far more mild laws might need to be honored. Both US and state law take precedence over religious law, but that doesn't mean religious law gets ignored. And, US companies are allowed to make contracts in other countries that might use Islamic law as part of their statuatory code.
User avatar
jonesthecurl
Posts: 4617
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Gender: Male
Location: disused action figure warehouse
Contact:

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by jonesthecurl »

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.

and then of course this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oklahoma-banned-ten-commandments-sharia-law/

Residents in Oklahoma thought they were voting to ban Sharia law last Tuesday but it turns out that the new constitutional amendment may also extend to the Ten Commandments.

The Oklahoma ballot measure orders judges not to consider Islamic or international law when deciding cases.

But Rick Tepker, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma School of Law believes the "Save Our State" constitutional amendment may have the unwanted side effect of preventing judges from referencing the Ten Commandments. Tepker called the measure "a mess."

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he told CNN. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."


So am I allowed to covet my neighbours ox in Oklahoma or not?
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Only if you are not a declared Christian :twisted:
bedub1
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by bedub1 »

Under muslim law this is okay:
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/22 ... Alive.html

And it says this is fine:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... wife-.html

This is totally cool too:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/15317/hm ... lim-alien/

So you ready for the point? Just because something is legal under Muslim law, doesn't mean it's legal in the US. Never will the US follow Muslim law and allow these above acts. But the guys committing them definitely want to see the US legal system adopt their laws.

To clarify, NO religious laws should be used in a US court of law, only US laws are valid.
User avatar
AndyDufresne
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Contact:

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by AndyDufresne »

bedub1 wrote:To clarify, NO religious laws should be used in a US court of law, only US laws are valid.


I fought the law, and the law won.


--Andy
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by PLAYER57832 »

bedub1 wrote:
So you ready for the point? Just because something is legal under Muslim law, doesn't mean it's legal in the US. Never will the US follow Muslim law and allow these above acts.

Exactly.....

bedub1 wrote: But the guys committing them definitely want to see the US legal system adopt their laws.

As do the Christian Right, Some Jewish Lobbiest, etc.. etc.... etc.

Why is Islam suddenly so much greater a threat that we need them specifically excluded in ways other religions are not?

bedub1 wrote: To clarify, NO religious laws should be used in a US court of law, only US laws are valid.

I agree, but the issue is that if people agree to follow certain laws, can they then use that as evidence in court. In particular, marriage and family law often consider religion. I mean Priests and Rabbis are allowed to marry people.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by Metsfanmax »

Could someone please clarify for me (since I know nothing about the subject) - what exactly does it mean for a court to use any religious law? I think I understand PLAYER's example of divorces being based on religious doctrine, but are there other examples? There have to be if this law is causing so much uproar, I just don't know what they are.
User avatar
GreecePwns
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by GreecePwns »

Metsfanmax wrote:Could someone please clarify for me (since I know nothing about the subject) - what exactly does it mean for a court to use any religious law? I think I understand PLAYER's example of divorces being based on religious doctrine, but are there other examples? There have to be if this law is causing so much uproar, I just don't know what they are.


The law is causing uproar because - from my understanding, at least - it implies that the court could use Sharia in addition to Christian and Jewish doctrines.

I, for one, am in support of the law. At the risk of using an "I have black friends" type of argument, I attended a recent debate about this. The conclusion I drew from the audience's reaction was that almost all Muslims in attendance were vehemently against the courts accepting Sharia or any other religious law for that matter. So the fact that it's a contentious issue between Muslims themselves (except when it comes to Muslim women, all twelve of the women I talked to were against Sharia), while say the Ten Commandments are not, means that this does not necessarily put Islam below other religions.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
jonesthecurl
Posts: 4617
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Gender: Male
Location: disused action figure warehouse
Contact:

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by jonesthecurl »

The Ten Commandments are not a part of the law in the U.S.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Metsfanmax wrote:Could someone please clarify for me (since I know nothing about the subject) - what exactly does it mean for a court to use any religious law? I think I understand PLAYER's example of divorces being based on religious doctrine, but are there other examples? There have to be if this law is causing so much uproar, I just don't know what they are.

I was hoping greekdog would comment, but anyway, here is part of the interview I heard:
(it is, of course, from NPR ;) )
Full article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =131168920
What The Law Would Do

"It's a ridiculous and offensive stereotype, an attempt to capitalize on the fears of people who don't know anything about Islam," says Awad. "We already have laws that prevent violence against women: You can't engage in a crime and consider it somehow related to your faith."

Constitutional scholars agree. They say that if a religious practice conflicts with American law, the courts will strike it down; the New Jersey appellate court's quick response in the case of marital abuse supports that principle.

Marc Stern, a First Amendment lawyer with the American Jewish Committee, says there's no way that fundamentalist Islamic law will be imported here.

"Stoning, cutting off of hands, people being forced to wear veils and the like are simply not going to happen with the assistance of the courts," Stern says.

So what would the new amendment do? Stern says it would favor other religious practices over Islamic ones. For example, Stern says, it is common for a court to accept a will, a prenuptial agreement or a contract based on religious law.

"This amendment seems to say the courts can take no notice of Shariah law," he says. "It doesn't say you can't take notice of canon or Jewish or any other form of religious law that imposes requirements on religious believers. That, alone, would seem to be grounds for throwing this out."

Looking Ahead

The amendment opens a Pandora's box of legal problems aside from the First Amendment issues, says Joseph Thai, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Law. It would bar courts in the state from recognizing all international law, including treaties and international business contracts that are often based on foreign law. He wonders, why would any foreign company do business with Oklahoma?

"I think this hurts Oklahoma’s economy because it chills international investment to the extent that international investors rely on international law to protect their contract rights," Thai says. "I think it also hurts Oklahoma more broadly because it makes Oklahoma seem like a less welcoming place for outsiders."

It's difficult to find anyone who believes Oklahoma's new law will survive. But that will be determined later. The next hearing — when the state government defends the measure — is scheduled for Nov. 22.


Here is an excerpt from a more general discussion of the issue, written by an attorney:
full link: http://volokh.com/2010/10/20/islamic-law-in-u-s-courts/
As I’ve argued before, I think courts should indeed generally enforce religiously inspired contracts, whether prompted by an Islamic marriage, a Jewish marriage, or other events, so long as the contracts expressly set forth obligations in terms that courts can enforce while applying neutral principles of contract interpretation law. Courts should also generally be open to enforcing arbitration agreements where the arbitrators are applying religious law, pursuant to the terms of a contract that calls for such law (though I’m not sure how U.S. law would treat such arbitrations if there is evidence that the tribunal may have applied sex-discriminatory or religion-discriminatory procedural rules).

I also think courts should be open to applying, say, Saudi law — which incorporates Islamic law — when the normal choice-of-law rules (where related to contracts, torts, family law, or what have you) call for the application of Saudi law, just as similar rules call for the application of Canadian law or Mexican law in other cases. If there is some public policy objection to a particular aspect of Saudi law, that aspect wouldn’t be enforced (just as speech-restrictive European law wouldn’t be enforced in defamation cases filed in U.S. court); but that is no reason to generally reject the application of Saudi law in other contexts. The courts wouldn’t be deciding what true Islam calls for, but just evaluating what legal rules are actually part of the Saudi justice system.

But I do think that there might be First Amendment problems when the court is itself being asked to determine what Islamic law calls for, just as there are such problems when a government agency is deciding what is kosher. (Check out this interesting case dealing with this as to a Hindu wedding.) I’m not sure about this; perhaps in contract cases the court could avoid unconstitutional decisions about what Islamic law really requires by instead asking what the parties likely contemplated. But in any event, I think this is where a court might be skating close to the constitutional edge.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

Post by PLAYER57832 »

jonesthecurl wrote:The Ten Commandments are not a part of the law in the U.S.

Unless you count the fact that a good number are mirrored in our laws ;) (even the adultry one was at one point... and still can be brought up).

However, Roman Catholic doctrine , Judaic law, etc all are considered when pertinent and there is no conflict with the statuatory laws.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”