Fed Court Strikes down OK Amendment to ban Sharia Law

[fightingquaker13]

Agreed. I just think that there  is a finer point that the court is making. That is, if we allow non-judicial secular arbitration, can we ban sectarian arbitration without running afoul of the 1A? This question has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and everything to do with the Free Exercise clause. Any comment about honor killings is BS, as no one is talking about amending murder statutes or the like. Real life is about family law. As I said in my OP, I don't like religious law of whatever flavor, be it muslim or jewish substituting for civil courts, as it disadvantages women. BUT...at what point can the state say you can't enter into a contract with a third paryt arbitrator just because that arbitrator is going to rule on religious grounds? Spare me the muslim bashing and address this key question.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

This is not about a woman going to a beit din to get a get (religious divorce), or a Muslim "court" deciding whether or not something constitutes interest that is disallowed by sharia, or any other civil matter. This is about cases that go to a US court for adjudication.

More precisely, this is about a sitting US judge at any level referencing Jewish, Muslim, Vatican or even Scottish civil law to decide an American case. The judges swore an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution and the laws under their jurisdiction. I would be as pissed about a judge referring to sharia (as has already happened in this country) as I am about Justice Ginsberg of the SCOTUS referencing foreign law as a basis for deciding cases (as she has done). It is wrong, it is illegal and it is another reason why the legal system is broken.

I have no problem with this law, and if they were to remove the word "sharia" and simply say that US judges must abide by their oaths and not use any non-US law or directly reference any religious source material in determining their cases, I would like to see it passed.

FQ, once again you are showing your true colors. If a judge routinely quoted the Bible in his or her rulings, you would be among those calling for their head. Why then would it ever be OK for a judge to reference the koran?

[tombogan03884]

I kind of agree with Pathfinder, but I have to point out that when SCOTUS was debating the Heller case one of the documents referenced was the Magna Carta.
Which was obviously not US law.

[Rastus]

I kind of agree with Pathfinder, but I have to point out that when SCOTUS was debating the Heller case one of the documents referenced was the Magna Carta.
Which was obviously not US law.

But the Magna Carta is a used by and as US law as I was taught.  Apparently, if there is nothing in our Constitution or precedent having been set on a matter it is possible to go back through English law as far back as the Magna Carta to settle a case.  Difference would be in a state which has their law codified, such as Louisiana.

OK.  Do we have any lawyers here that can say yea or nay on this?

[fightingquaker13]

But the Magna Carta is a used by and as US law as I was taught.  Apparently, if there is nothing in our Constitution or precedent having been set on a matter it is possible to go back through English law as far back as the Magna Carta to settle a case.  Difference would be in a state which has their law codified, such as Louisiana.

OK.  Do we have any lawyers here that can say yea or nay on this?

You have a Con law prof who can say kinda. By that I mean this. In the early years of the Republic, up until the Civil War, it was routine for the Court to refer to International Law to resolve disputes, particularly among states. Probably the most famous case was Scott v. Sanford (Dredd Scott), where the English case of The Slave Grace was relied on by the dissent and dismissed by the majority. Still, it was held as binding precedent. Even today, international law is referred to. The principle is known as comity, keeping in line, more or less, with other "civilised" nations, though unfortunately we don't use that word or that distinction anymore. It was a factor in the Court's decisions to forbid the execution of minors and the mentally retarded.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[Pathfinder]

I try to use my words precisely. I said if the judge used any other law to decide a case. Referencing the other laws to establish precedent as in the case of the Magna Carta in Heller is different, but if the decision is based predominantly or solely on the foreign law, then there is a problem.

Comity be damned - we as a country were founded on thumbing our noses at foreign powers and their beliefs in Imperial powers and rule of man over the rule of law. Mexico tried to pull that comity crap when Texas executed a Mexican national who had murdered a number of American citizens.

I stand by my assertion that judges are not to be allowed to use anything other than US Constitutions and laws to decide their cases. If they do, they should be removed from office by whatever means are available.