Activist Judge sides with C.A.I.R. against the citizens of Oklahoma

Phil Boehmke
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange (a Clinton appointee) issued a preliminary injunction on Monday which continues to bar the implementation of State Question 755. The amendment which was approved by 70% of Oklahomans on November 2, would protect the people of Oklahoma from activist judges in state courts who would use Sharia or international law in rendering decisions. The injunction will prevent the state board of elections from certifying the results of the vote indefinitely which will block implementation of the amendment.

The Tulsa World reports:

Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued to prevent the measure amending the state Constitution. A temporary restraining order had already been issued barring it from taking effect.

The Oklahoman reports that:

In today's order, the judge wrote that Awad "has made a strong showing that State Question 755's amendment's primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The case argued before Miles-LaGrange was handled for the state by Scott Boughton, the Assistant Attorney General at the direction of the current Attorney General (lame duck Democrat) W.A. Drew Edmonson. The incoming Attorney General Scott Pruitt will in all likelihood pursue the case with greater zeal and enthusiasm.

Earlier this month IPT News reported that C.A.I.R. had been linked to the terrorist group Hamas in a recently unsealed ruling made by a federal judge.

"The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas," U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009 ruling. 

Sharia law has never been used in rendering a decision in Oklahoma, however the amendment's authors, Representative Rex Duncan (R-Sand Springs) and Senator Anthony Skyles (R-Moore) were addressing the potential of activist judges to use Shari or international law as the basis for writing new law to further their radical agenda.

The potential use of Sharia law by an activist judge is a very real concern because this very fear has already been realized in a New Jersey courtroom. According to Jihadwatch:

...a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault on his wife--not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something consistant with his practices and it was something not prohibited."

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

Perhaps Judge Miles-LaGrange is unaware of the fundamentals of Sharia law. Here in the United States of America, it is not lawful for a husband to rape his wife, regardless of his religious belief. Here in the United States of America, the punishment for adultery is not public stoning nor is the punishment for theft the hacking off of the accused thief's hand. Here in the United States of America we have the right of free exercise of religion, but we may not use our beliefs as a legal means to commit heinous and barbaric crimes against other people.

Perhaps Judge Miles-LaGrange should spend some time getting familiar with Sharia law, perhaps she should spend a little time getting to know what sort of individuals are involved in C.A.I.R., and time permitting she may wish to spend a little time reading the Constitution of the United States. And the Federalist Papers.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange (a Clinton appointee) issued a preliminary injunction on Monday which continues to bar the implementation of State Question 755. The amendment which was approved by 70% of Oklahomans on November 2, would protect the people of Oklahoma from activist judges in state courts who would use Sharia or international law in rendering decisions. The injunction will prevent the state board of elections from certifying the results of the vote indefinitely which will block implementation of the amendment.

The Tulsa World reports:

Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued to prevent the measure amending the state Constitution. A temporary restraining order had already been issued barring it from taking effect.

The Oklahoman reports that:

In today's order, the judge wrote that Awad "has made a strong showing that State Question 755's amendment's primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The case argued before Miles-LaGrange was handled for the state by Scott Boughton, the Assistant Attorney General at the direction of the current Attorney General (lame duck Democrat) W.A. Drew Edmonson. The incoming Attorney General Scott Pruitt will in all likelihood pursue the case with greater zeal and enthusiasm.

Earlier this month IPT News reported that C.A.I.R. had been linked to the terrorist group Hamas in a recently unsealed ruling made by a federal judge.

"The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas," U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009 ruling. 

Sharia law has never been used in rendering a decision in Oklahoma, however the amendment's authors, Representative Rex Duncan (R-Sand Springs) and Senator Anthony Skyles (R-Moore) were addressing the potential of activist judges to use Shari or international law as the basis for writing new law to further their radical agenda.

The potential use of Sharia law by an activist judge is a very real concern because this very fear has already been realized in a New Jersey courtroom. According to Jihadwatch:

...a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault on his wife--not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something consistant with his practices and it was something not prohibited."

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

Perhaps Judge Miles-LaGrange is unaware of the fundamentals of Sharia law. Here in the United States of America, it is not lawful for a husband to rape his wife, regardless of his religious belief. Here in the United States of America, the punishment for adultery is not public stoning nor is the punishment for theft the hacking off of the accused thief's hand. Here in the United States of America we have the right of free exercise of religion, but we may not use our beliefs as a legal means to commit heinous and barbaric crimes against other people.

Perhaps Judge Miles-LaGrange should spend some time getting familiar with Sharia law, perhaps she should spend a little time getting to know what sort of individuals are involved in C.A.I.R., and time permitting she may wish to spend a little time reading the Constitution of the United States. And the Federalist Papers.