A New York Lawyer Suggests Impeaching An Oklahoma Judge
November 22, 2010, 04:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

11/21/10 - Ian Fletcher Responds To Ed Rubenstein, Holds Out Hope For A Nationalist GOP

From: NY Lawyer[Email him]

Re: Peter Brimelow's Blog Post Coincidence? Another Black, Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Thwarts Voters

The left illustrate in their defense of the ruling [PDF]by the least competent judge on the Oklahoma federal district court how fundamental protections of the federal and state constitutions have been gradually eroded by the courts through piecemeal litigation. The point of the constitutional amendment was to prevent judicial amendment of Oklahoma law as advocated by the international left and specifically, the Muslim lobby. The far left, led by Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, believe that foreign law should be applied by the American courts and that it should trump American law if there is no other way to assure that the nonwhite or foreigner defeats the white American in a particular case

Meanwhile, Muslims have been demanding that western countries adopt Sharia Law, and some European jurisdictions have already complied. In particular, Muslims are outraged that the infidels and their courts have sought to ban and punish traditional Muslim practices, such as honor killings and slavery and to compel Muslims serving the public to transport seeing eye dogs in their taxis and to handle non-Halal meat at McDonalds. Other alien populations have their own ultimatums, including the Sikhs' demand that they be allowed to wear turbans in the US military.

The people of Oklahoma decided overwhelmingly to draw a line in the sand at the Oklahoma border to stop the imposition of Sharia Law. This should not have been necessary, but for good reason, the citizens of Oklahoma do not trust the courts. Oklahoma state law is essentially common law—uncodified law emanating from the courts of England and the courts of American jurisdictions that existed prior to the establishment of Oklahoma courts, and the courts of Oklahoma since Oklahoma statehood. It is supplemented and amended by statutes enacted by the state of Oklahoma. Nothing in the common law allows the imposition of Sharia Law in the Oklahoma courts, and there is no Oklahoma statute that does so. If an Oklahoma trial judge were nevertheless to apply Sharia Law in an Oklahoma dispute, the decision would properly be reversed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The left argue that an immigrant of an alien religion is entitled to bring his own law with him wherever he goes. Unmentioned but understood is that alien law would trump American law if necessary to assure that the immigrant wins, or that the Muslim man prevails over the woman. It's a one way street, of course, as the same people have no objection to the harsh penalties imposed against foreigners in Muslim countries who violate Sharia Law by consuming alcohol or wearing European women's clothing. This is analogous to the left's demand for open borders here, but closed borders in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Neither the federal court nor the left has explained how the Oklahoma constitutional amendment amounts to a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", to quote the First Amendment. Nothing in the amendment establishes a state religion in Oklahoma, nor does it prevent a Muslim from practicing his religion. It simply prevents him from bringing his own law to Oklahoma and using it to override Oklahoma law. The amendment clearly is constitutional. .[ Judge details rationale for halting anti-Shariah law measure , By Josh Gerstein, POLITICO.com, November 9, 2010 ]

The most troubling aspect of this case is the interference of the lowliest Article III federal judge, a federal district judge, in the affairs of a state even before a case or controversy has arisen. Under the traditional approach, the federal courts would intervene in a state's affairs only after a state court had entered a judgment in conflict with the United States Constitution. The court to do so would have been the United States Supreme Court, reviewing a decision of the state's highest court. Furthermore, this is forum shopping at its worst. The Muslims brought the action in federal court because of a high probability, perhaps certainty, that it would be assigned to a friendly black judge. Since you have to start somewhere to send a message to the oppressive federal judiciary, the district judge who signed the temporary restraining order should be impeached for failing to uphold the Constitution.