- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
Read more: Voters ban judges from using international law | NewsOK.com
because some idiot judge had to open his/her idiot mouth and say something about "international law", and people thought of the worst, put it to vote, and made sure the worst would never happen. :/You really have to wonder why this even had to put to a vote.
because some idiot judge had to open his/her idiot mouth and say something about "international law", and people thought of the worst, put it to vote, and made sure the worst would never happen. :/
You really have to wonder why this even had to put to a vote.
Okay boy genius (not you Dark), what happens if there is an issue that has never been dealt with in the US but has effectively been dealt with in foreign courts?
By your reasoning, we cannot even look at how they dealt with it.
The whole "not invented here" attitude is very much detrimental to America.
Then that is too bad. The intent of the authors behind the law is what should be looked up, not how judges in another country rule on something.
Judges in the US should not even in the first place be looking how other countries handle their cases. We not Mexico, Canada, Britain or some other country. I know I do not want judges here looking at Eurotrash example of the right to bear to arms, free speech or any other thing.
So basically you're saying it doesn't matter if the outcome was good, the reasoning just, and the law fine, not invented here so screw it?
Wow. And you think you are a patriot? Really.
So basically you are saying that if a new issue comes up, we should bar judges from looking at how other countries either successfully or unsuccessfully handled it?
You do know a fool learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from others' mistakes no?
Like I said, the "not invented here" is detrimental to America. Tell me, do you use anything that was invented or improved overseas?
Has a US judge done any of these things?I do not want a judge citing euro-trash version of free speech, middle eastern punishment for theft, or how some other country punishes their offenders for various other offenses.
How did they cite it?This is why voters in Oklahoma enacted this law. Its because of the fact they learned from other states mistakes and a few rats in the supreme court who cited foreign law.
One man's garbage is another man's treasure. In other words its a matter of perspective of what a good outcome is. I do not want a judge citing euro-trash version of free speech, middle eastern punishment for theft, or how some other country punishes their offenders for various other offenses.
You do realize that you can not be a patriot and a globalist piece of **** at the same time.
Letting judges cite foreign law is very unpatriotic.
Yes we should ban judges from citing ANOTHER COUNTRY'S LAWS. Its a matter of perspective of what was successfully handled or unsuccessfully handled.
This is why voters in Oklahoma enacted this law. Its because of the fact they learned from other states mistakes and a few rats in the supreme court who cited foreign law.
The laws on our books do not have squat to do with me using a piece of electronics or machinery.
:lol: This law is fairly useless, judges can still take inspiration from international law, they just can't tell anyone.
I do not know about those things in particular buts judges here in the US have cited foreign lawHas a US judge done any of these things?
How did they cite it?
The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
Where did I say anything about citing it? You are clearly against them even looking at what happened overseas. Tell me, do you think that everything our court system will see it has already seen?
Your desperation in defending globalist judges is ridiculous.Your xenophobia is pretty ridiculous.
No its not.Patriotism is synonymous with nationalism.Globalism is the opposite of nationalismActually the opposite is true.
You cannot be a patriot and be a xenophobe at the same time. The world is too interconnected to just give the finger to everyone else. To ignore what occurs elsewhere or to scorn it is to leave yourself and this country exceedingly blind. Tell me how that benefits America.
Since when did cite = look? The law bans "considering" which includes looking at foreign instances in courts and incorporating them into thinking. Basically, you want us to ignore everything foreign courts did, even when the subject is new to the US and dealt with overseas. I'd rather our court looks at how overseas courts either handles it well or totally screwed it up so we don't make the same mistakes. It appears you'd rather have us learn from our mistakes rather then learn from others' mistakes.
Since when was citing = considering? And no, it's not always a manner of perspective. You have this notion that anything not America is automatically bad.
Such as....
You do realize that this law was based on idiocy that some places in the US are enacting Shar'ia? Despite the fact that is occurring nowhere in the US.
How about an idea?
Look! The system works! And that judge should probably be impeached or not renewed. Appeals courts reverse bad decisions. Like how it's suppose to be.
And Ginsburg makes a good point. "Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” The notion that COTUS will cover everything is pretty insane.
I do not know nor do I care. Judges here have no business looking(pc speak for citing) at foreign law.
Your desperation in defending globalist judges is ridiculous.
No its not.Patriotism is synonymous with nationalism.Globalism is the opposite of nationalism
Xenophobia. SO you want to attach that word to not wanting judges to cite laws in other countries?
You can not be a globalist/internationalist and a patriot at the same time. Its like being pro-life and running an abortion clinic, it can't happen because they are the opposite of each other.
Whats the point in looking if they are not going to cite it or use that example? The only reason to be looking in the first place is to use them as an example. A judge here in the US has no business looking how Russia handles thieves or how Britain handles free speech cases.
You do realize some idiot judge in New Jersey cited SHaria law and even a supreme court judge cited foreign law?
The decision did get reversed, but a judge citing foreign law should have never happened in the first place.That is why Oklahoma enacted its anti-globalist/internationalist law.
If we copy Mexico's laws in dealing with illegals we pretty much know the intent behind that law regardless of the fact if today was the first time someone was punished according to hose laws,judges do not need to look at Mexico's court room decisions involving the law.
The law is fairly useless on multiple levels. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that if the Federal gov honours an international law, that means every State has to. Oklahoma can go suck a lemon.
The actual document is hard to find. the court that over turned the appeal said that:I do not know about those things in particular buts judges here in the US have cited foreign law
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex - Jihad Watch
Ginsburg said that a court is NOT bound by foreign law but can be influenced by good reasoning from foreign sources if it so chooses.url=http://wellsy.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/ruth-bader-ginsburg-defends-citing-foreign-law-in-scotus-decisions/]Ruth Bader Ginsburg defends citing foreign law in SCOTUS decisions « Wellsy's World[/url]
Okay boy genius (not you Dark), what happens if there is an issue that has never been dealt with in the US but has effectively been dealt with in foreign courts? By your reasoning, we cannot even look at how they dealt with it.
The whole "not invented here" attitude is very much detrimental to America.
Do you understand the difference between, "precedence", and, "law"?
Foreign laws should never be used to decide cases in The United States.
It takes a complete goofball to think that it would be ok to do so.
In China, drunk drivers get the death penalty. Would you be ok for an American judge to issue a sentence of death to a convicted drunk driver, just because it's the law in China?
The United States has a constitution and laws and those are the only barometers of justice that are to be used. Period!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?