rocketpig said:
Why? Under no circumstances are judges allowed to rule based on foreign law. The Constitution is the top of the chain and it all rolls downhill from there. It's not as if a judge has ever been able to say "you know what, there's no law on the books for this... I'm gonna make one up and I'm gonna use Sharia Law to do it!" They can't do that. They've never been able to do that. They'll never be able to do that. |
Though I think the arguement is that they have done this. Though, not likely in Kansas. Largely substituting the regular US way to split things up in divorce or custody proceedings and instead doing so how it would be expected in Shaira law based on said expectations rather then how it would go in a typical US court case.
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if the politcians were making this up, but they claim it has already happened in US courts, specifically in the above proceedings.
There was also a case where a restraining order wasn't granted because while the woman was raped and beaten by her husband, her husband believed he had the right to do these things under Sharia law.
Though that one I'm pretty sure was overturned on appeal.
Really it seems like a hamfisted attempt to take the side of legal absolutism. That is, you treat every case the same, versus treating judgements based on cultural differences.
