|
|
|
Jewish World Review Nov. 11, 2010/ 4 Kislev, 5771 Checks (and Balances), Please By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Yet again, much like what is ongoing in Arizona, the federal government, represented by U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange, is attempting to repudiate the will of the electorate in Oklahoma. Judge Miles-LeGrange put a hold on a law that bars courts in that state from considering Sharia Law for the purposes of rendering decisions in cases put before them. 70% of Oklahomans voted in favor of the statute. A hearing on November 22 will determine whether or not the injunction becomes permanent.
"Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities," said Muneer Awad, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma. Mr. Awad filed the suit last two days after the election, claiming the law violated his Constitutional rights.
Does one sense the irony here? Mr. Awad apparently believes the judge's decision should be based on the Constitution, even as a ruling in his favor would have judges considering sources other than the Constitution as a result.
Sadly, Judge Miles-LeGrange is taking her cues from two Supreme Court Justices. Both Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan are on the record with the idea that "international law" can be referenced in an effort to reach Constitutional verdicts.
This is utter nonsense. Not because there is no value in sources other than the Constitution, but because it vastly expands the power of the Judicial branch of government beyond all scope envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Judges who believe their decisions aren't constrained by the limits of the Constitution are essentially saying they are above such limitations. In other words, we are a nation not "of laws," but one beholden to the "superior wisdom" of a judiciary willing to impose a particular set of values derived from any source they consider "wise."
That's not a "branch of government." That's a judicial monarchy.
Irony number two: the judge has validated the very vote against which she issued the injunction. Oklahomans voted to ban the courts from using both Sharia Law and international law as a means of expressing their fears of a judiciary run amok. Judge Miles-LeGrange just validated that fear. The desire of seven-out-of-ten Oklahomans to essentially establish state-mandated limits on the power of the judiciary was just negated by a single jurist.
The American left has been quick to criticize Oklahomans for their "intolerance" and "Bible-thumping ways." In addition, many liberals consider any fears of Sharia Law gaining a foothold in the United States to be unfounded.
Perhaps they should cast their eyes towards Great Britain. A 2009 study by independent think-tank Civitas claimed "at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are operating in Britain," a number "17 times higher than previously accepted."
Or they can merely read the ruling of Judge Joseph Charles, a New Jersey family court jurist who refused to grant a restraining order to a Moroccan woman forced to repeatedly have sex with her husband against her will: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant (her husband) had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or 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 that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."
In other words, New Jersey state law only applies if it doesn't conflict someone's cultural expectations, which in this particular case is the Muslim "tradition" of treating women like property.
Incredibly, Judge Charles made this ruling after admitting that "a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted (his wife)." The ruling was later overturned by the Appellate Court, but it underscores the frightening level of "discretion" that accrues to judges untethered to anything other than their own feelings.
Is there an antidote to an imperialist-minded judiciary? On Election Day, voters in the state of Iowa did something that, with any luck, could be become a nationwide trend. Three state Supreme Court judges who had voted to make same-sex marriage legal in that state--overriding the state legislature and the peoples' wishes in the process--were booted from the bench for the first time since 1962, when Iowa's merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.
As expected, liberals were furious, claiming that such a referendum threatens "judicial independence." Independence from what? Constitutional law? The expressed will of the people via legislation and the ballot box? Americans in Iowa and many other places, are fed up with reigning in progressive policy, only to see their efforts completely negated by an out-of-control judiciary--which then often adds insult to injury by citing extra-Constitutional sources as "inspiration."
As for Oklahoma, they join Arizona as yet another state where progressives, using the federal judiciary, are determined to thwart the will of the people in order to impose their agenda. Such heavy-handed rulings as these two will add more fuel to a fire already ignited by the health care bill's individual insurance mandate: a reassertion of states' rights as a bulwark against federal government overreach. And with a bit more luck, additional states will consider adopting recall statues for judges who believe the Constitution is little more than "one of many" reference guides for "divining" American law.
Such statutes would reinvigorate a concept completely anathema to progressive ambition and elitist judges: checks and balances--as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR Contributor Arnold Ahlert's column, by clicking here.
© 2010, Arnold Ahlert |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||||
