Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And again, it doesn't matter what the voters think when constitutionality is involved. That lands it in the hands of the court, period.
Oh...I forgot that we are not a government of the people.
Quote:
I bet there was a time when 70% or more of the people in Alabama didn't want integrated schools, either.
See post #39 and there is no comparison between integration and woman who do not want to be raped repeatedly by their ex husband because he thinks it is his right under sharia.
"In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”
In other words, the system is working as intended.
Again THIS was a question of RELEVANCE. It is the purview of the judge to make relevancy determinations. THIS IS NOT ADOPTING SHARIA LAW.
This was about the judge assessing the defendant's intent, getting into the defendant's subjective state of mind, and nothing more.
He may have (arguably) gotten it wrong, but the point is that this case doesn't do what the rather shrill and misleading title of this op-ed piece says it does.
The real mistake here was the judge thinking that ignorance of the law was an excuse. That's what he really did wrong.
Oh...I forgot that we are not a government of the people.
How many times do I have to go through this? It is not a matter of opinion. It is basic American civics 101.
Constitutional stuff is NOT subject to the whim of the majority. Period.
Quote:
See post #39 and there is no comparison between integration and woman who do not want to be raped repeatedly by their ex husband because he thinks it is his right under sharia.
That is a misrepresentation of what the judge actually did. Even if correct, it doesn't mean Sharia is taking over. It means one judge in NJ was drunk on duty. And really, couldn't you find a more unbiased source than THAT?
No it does not mean sharia is taking over but it definitely shows their ultimate goal. Who will be the next drunk judge? Give them an inch....
It does seem that unless he shows he is one of them completely that they will take him down with a trial. Here are all the things he has been doing wrong according to Choudary, the Muslim who will be leading the demonstration at the White House this week. That is, they will demonstrate if someone gets them a permit to do it.
Will these be the S Central Kansas Muslim hordes sweeping in from the west to conquer Washington? My bet is that they're p*ssed because Obama drinks beer and eats pork.
I've gotta hand it to you, roy. You post a lot of nutty stuff on this forum. But you've outdone yourself this time.
Yeah...just happened to be Muslim. He also said it was unconstitutional but has yet to explain how. Maybe you would like to explain for him?
I know that 70% (nearly 700,000) of the people of Oklahoma who voted would disagree.
It does not matter if they agree or not, or don't you know that. After all we are a Republic not a Democracy as the right just loves to point out.
Casper
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,831,906 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
From the link:
"In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”
In other words, the system is working as intended.
Again THIS was a question of RELEVANCE. It is the purview of the judge to make relevancy determinations. THIS IS NOT ADOPTING SHARIA LAW.
This was about the judge assessing the defendant's intent, getting into the defendant's subjective state of mind, and nothing more.
He may have (arguably) gotten it wrong, but the point is that this case doesn't do what the rather shrill and misleading title of this op-ed piece says it does.
The real mistake here was the judge thinking that ignorance of the law was an excuse. That's what he really did wrong.
Again, it's theater.
I bet that judge was a secret muslim and was secretly talking with secret muslim Obama about how to handle this secretly muslim case.
When they take over I hope they have those boxes set up around the hood to turn in saboteurs like the commie Ruskies had. I am turning in a lot of people to have then vanish..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Muslims to take over USA...
He also said it was unconstitutional but has yet to explain how. Maybe you would like to explain for him?
