Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Observing Foreign Law WTF?

Justice Mugabe?

DETROIT — A national drive against citing “foreign” laws in U.S. courts - one that critics say is a veiled attack on Islamic Shariah law - has reached the state with the nation’s largest concentration of Muslims.

The Michigan bill, which mirrors “American Laws for American Courts” legislation introduced in more than 20 other states, was introduced in June by state Rep. Dave Agema, Grandville Republican. He has argued that it has nothing to do with Islam or the faith’s Koran-based Shariah law, but is designed to stop anyone who seeks to invoke a foreign law in state courts. [Muslims see ‘foreign law’ bill as attack on Shariah]


Foreign Law SCOTUS

Top Left, Justices Ahmadinejad, Putin, King Ubangi, Mugabe
Bottom Left -
Justices Sarkozy, Jong Il, Chief Justice Omar, Scalia, Barbara Mikulski's girlfriend



And there's this
Very recently a majority of the present justices, and maybe all, have written and joined opinions that rely on foreign materials, including opinions written by Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Chief Justice Rehnquist. And one journalist was quoted as saying, there is now a new attentiveness by the Supreme Court to legal developments in the rest of the world, but not so fast.
[...]
 Strong voices, including most notably Justice Scalia's, have protested to what some suggest an expanding trend in U.S. constitutional law. It is important to recognize that it is not only conservatives who have taken this position. A prominent liberal law professor has recently written that any effort to import international norms into American constitutional law is largely a waste of time. [Transcript of Discussion Between U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer -- AU Washington College of Law, Jan. 13 (1995)]

I cannot believe that more than the 22% or so of the population who want the US Constitution abolished, would agree that our courts ought observe foreign court precedent.  Anyone pushing this idea ought to be, and I hope is, on someone's "bad" list for being dealt with after this Obama regime terror is over.


9 comments:

Mile 66 said...

O.T.: Did you get that? Nice quake!

Anonymous said...

If this isn't grounds for impeachment, I don't know what is. It is and out and out repudiation of the oath every federal official takes to uphold the constitution of the United States. If we get 60 seats in the Senate, these fuckers need to be impeached. It's time for an impeachment project.

Casca

DougM said...

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
You want to invoke foreign laws? Get a frikkin' constitutional amendment.
Until then, KMA, you f'n traitors.

Mile 66 said...

Where's the "like" button?
M66

Chuck Martel said...

In some cases, I don't know if you are exactly dealing w/ sharia law as much as you are dealing w/ either issues of comity or 1st amendment law.

"Comity is neither a matter of absolute obligation, nor of mere courtesy and good will. It is a recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or other persons who are under the protection of its laws. " Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895)

"[T]he rule of action which should govern the civil courts . . . is, that, whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them." SERBIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE v. MILIVOJEVICH, 426 U.S. 696 (1976)
http://tinyurl.com/44vmjkv

Anonymous said...

someone's "bad" list
I keep a list with three categories:
1. flog
2. hang
3. flog before hang
RKOF says "I'd like #3 for all the MFCS, Alex"
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Anonymous said...

Chuck -...the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final...
Would you clarify that a little for me?
I can see where that would hold for excommunication, for example, or elevating a cleric. However, is the quoted statement absolute, or does it apply only up to the point that the ecclesiastical ruling does not violate state law; IOW an Imam in the USA cannot rule that a woman in his congregation shall be stoned for adultery because that exceeds the punishment allowed by US law or falls under the jurisdiction of a criminal court, not a civil court.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Chuck Martel said...

That's right, LCOLGEN. A US court wouldn't (or shouldn't) uphold a stoning decree. That's why the offshoots of the Mormons are having problems with the local authorities when it comes to marrying and having sex with multiple underage girls.

Where you really see the impact of ecclesiastical law is in cases of money -- filthy lucre. Intracongregational and intradenominational fights as to who owns church property. Fights as to who can publish the writings of a deceased preacher.

The biggest ones are those over pensions. The Church of God of Cleveland TN has a rule that you can't get a pension if you aren't an ordained minister. If you commit adultery, they remove your ordination. Once that happens, they cut off your pension payments. Courts uphold that all the time.

Kim said...

1. What the hell is Scalia doing in the pic?

2. No way Barbara Mikulski could score anything that hot.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.