A little FYI: What is sworn to is to abide by t
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 02/16/2016 10:45:56 AM
Re: getmoreshares #2162
A little FYI:
What is sworn to is to abide by the U.S. Constitution. It will be as obvious if she insinuates Sharia law into her rulings as it would be if a 'Christian judge' applied Biblical law.
Any conduct/rulings/statements that conflict with the U.S. Constitution will merit censure or removal no less for the Muslim judge than for a Christian judge.
Considering the amount of scrutiny likely to be applied to her court, it should be readily apparent if Sharia law creeps in.
Hopefully she won't try to put a tablet of Koranic statements on the courthouse steps like the AL judge did with the Ten Commandments:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/
What is sworn to is to abide by the U.S. Constitution. It will be as obvious if she insinuates Sharia law into her rulings as it would be if a 'Christian judge' applied Biblical law.
Any conduct/rulings/statements that conflict with the U.S. Constitution will merit censure or removal no less for the Muslim judge than for a Christian judge.
Considering the amount of scrutiny likely to be applied to her court, it should be readily apparent if Sharia law creeps in.
Hopefully she won't try to put a tablet of Koranic statements on the courthouse steps like the AL judge did with the Ten Commandments:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/
Quote:
A similar controversy erupted regarding Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison's use of a Quran in 2006. At that time, UCLA law professor and legal analyst Eugene Volokh responded to a CNN panel question about whether the use of religious texts other than the Bible was addressed in extant law, explaining (in a response that has nothing to do with President Obama):
Well [the Constitution] actually does say a couple of things. First, it doesn't even require congressman to use any religious text or any religious component. It specifically provides that they may affirm, rather than swearing. That was for the benefit of people who have a religious objection to invoking God in an oath.
Quakers were a traditional example. And for example, President Herbert Hoover was sworn in without putting his hand on any book.
It also says no religious text shall be used for government office. And when you're required to swear on the book of a religion that is different from you, not traditionally you've done it, that would be an impermissible religious test.
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼