Judge Says Courts Must Accept Shariah Influence

Posted 06:53 PM ET

First Amendment: An Oklahoma constitutional amendment barring the state's courts from weighing or using Shariah law was struck down in federal court. How can a law written to protect the Constitution be unconstitutional?

Only in the parallel universe of judicial activists in which U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange resides can a law barring a particular religion's influence over court decisions be considered under the First Amendment of the Constitution as an unconstitutional establishment of competing religions.

"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," Miles-LaGrange wrote in her decision.

That individual would be Muneer Awad, a Muslim and U.S. citizen who once was executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and who filed a lawsuit on Nov. 4, 2010, seeking to block the Save Our State amendment that had been approved by 70% of Oklahoma voters two days earlier.

On Nov. 29, 2010, Miles-LaGranfe issued a preliminary injunction, finding that Awad had legal standing and that the amendment likely violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

On Thursday she issued a permanent injunction, writing in her order that "it is abundantly clear that the primary purpose of the amendment was to specifically target and outlaw Shariah law and to act as a pre-emptive strike against Shariah law to protect Oklahoma from a perceived 'threat' of Shariah law being utilized in Oklahoma courts."

Of course it was, and it's Oklahoma's right to do so. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" but says nothing about the states and their inhabitants. Indeed, when this country was formed the original 13 states had various forms of established religions. The First Amendment was written to prohibit federal imposition of religion, not to prohibit states rights in that arena.

The amendment read in part: "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Shariah law."
Miles-LaGrange, while complaining that the amendment targeted a specific religion, also said it would have made no difference if the amendment had wording saying that Oklahoma courts "shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures."

This reflects a growing judicial activism and subversion of American jurisprudence. In his book, "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide View of Judges," the late Judge Robert Bork cites the example of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's references to the "useful decisions" by the Privy Council of Jamaica, the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe for a 1999 case involving allowable delays of executions.

Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2cSfQSm4M