Voters ban judges from using international law

[obvious Child]

I agree with Obvious Child. It makes no sense to not learn from the experiences of other countries when dealing with an issue or problem. However I don't believe that Judges should use foreign law when addressing cases with already pre-established precedence or Constitutional issues.

Not to mention it makes no sense to explicitly forbid state judges from applying US law. In the bill that was passed, international law is defined as treaties. The problem is that such treaties are US law. Ergo, state judges cannot apply US Law in US courts. What a stupid law.

 

[apdst]

Yes. I wonder if you do.



Wrong as usual Adpst. Foreign laws include treaties signed with the United States. Treaties that range from weapons control to tax transfer pricing. To say that we should never use foreign laws is to explicitly argue that we should not abide to our own treaties ratified by our own Congress. Furthermore, merely looking at a foreign case, and not necessarily the actual law does not mean that we are basing the entire US court decision on international outcomes. You appear to be very unaware of the various aspects of law.

Uber fail there Adpst.




It takes a complete goofball to think that it's okay to explicitly mandate that US courts must ignore US treaties. Way to fail to read the actual bill there. Notice how it defines international law. It includes treatises the US has signed. That effectively makes it unconstitutional as it attempts to take away the Federal Government's sole ability to deal with foreign powers. States do not have the right to make international agreements. Nor do they have the right to ignore Federal law. By explicitly legislating that state courts must ignore federal law, they have enacted a highly unconstitutional law.



Way to completely screw up what I was talking about. Go read what I wrote rather then just lying your ass off with exceptionally poor analogies. You do know people can actually read what I wrote and see you are being dishonest no?



Except that the Oklahoma law explicitly forbids the application of US treaties. Which are US laws.

You really should research before posting.

It's rather pathetic how some people have to resort to outright lying about what I said to attempt to get back at me.

So, you support Sharia Law being used in courts in the United States? Honor killings and all?

Is there a treaty authorizing the implementation of Sharia Law? There isn't, huh?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So, you support Sharia Law being used in courts in the United States? Honor killings and all?
Is there a treaty authorizing the implementation of Sharia Law? There isn't, huh?

Yeah, that's totally gonna happen.

Furthermore...
If a judge looks at anything that comes from anywhere besides the US it's a sign of terrible evil. Any judge who uses information or wisdom from one of them foreign lands outside the United States, like the stuff found in the Bible, is a wicked, wicked man who hates America.

Just sayin...


For the record, it should be noted that these judges aren't citing anything other than US law as binding precedent. But don't let that little incidental tidbit get the way of your outrage and fear.

 

[apdst]

Yeah, that's totally gonna happen.

Furthermore...
If a judge looks at anything that comes from anywhere besides the US it's a sign of terrible evil. Any judge who uses information or wisdom from one of them foreign lands outside the United States, like the stuff found in the Bible, is a wicked, wicked man who hates America.

Just sayin...


For the record, it should be noted that these judges aren't citing anything other than US law as binding precedent. But don't let that little incidental tidbit get the way of your outrage and fear.

So, how do you feel about that Muslim cat sueing, because he wants Sharia Law to be used in American courts?

 

[spud_meister]

So, how do you feel about that Muslim cat sueing, because he wants Sharia Law to be used in American courts?

Sharia law is unconstitutional, any fear of it being implemented is unfounded.

 

[obvious Child]

So, you support Sharia Law being used in courts in the United States? Honor killings and all?

Nice fallacy of raising the bar there. Glad to see you still have no concept of the word "honesty."

Wrong as usual and completely unwilling to admit it. Typical.

Simon W. Moon addressed your totally bat**** argument regarding Sharia

Is there a treaty authorizing the implementation of Sharia Law? There isn't, huh?

So, how do you feel about that Muslim cat sueing, because he wants Sharia Law to be used in American courts?

Go for it. Problem is that COTUS explicitly forbids that. Way to fail with flying colors there.

I do enjoy watching you argue that we should explicitly forbid US courts from applying US law. :lamo

 

[obvious Child]

For the record, it should be noted that these judges aren't citing anything other than US law as binding precedent. But don't let that little incidental tidbit get the way of your outrage and fear.

So I was right to question Adpst's understanding of precedent.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So, how do you feel about that Muslim cat sueing, because he wants Sharia Law to be used in American courts?

What do you suppose "use" means in this instance?

 

[Samboni]

I might be drawing some incorrect inferences here, but it seems to me that some believe the New Jersey trial judge cited Sharia law as authoritative. I disagree. His only (misguided) purpose in referencing Sharia law was to make a factual finding: did the ex-husband intend to commit rape? He found no intent as Sharia permits husbands unqualified "access" to their wives.

That said, this judge needs a thorough review and may even need to retake the bar exam. No consent = rape. This nonsense is what occurs when folks blur the lines too much. Ultimately, everyone's circumstance becomes "special" and thusly, they are not held accountable.

Furthermore, why re-legislate that which is already on the books? I'm no constitutional law expert, but my guess is that this amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution gets struck down. Like Justice Stewart said about pornography, "I know it when I see it."