Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) has signed a new law that prohibits the use of any foreign law in Florida courts.
https://news.yahoo.com/fla-gov-oks-bill-prohibit-foreign-law-231434063.html
"The measure does not single out specific religions but critics said the law is intended to target a specific form of law called Shariah that is practiced in courts in some Muslim countries."
8 comments:
Anonymous critics?
It shouldn't even be necessary to pass a law in the USA that only USA laws will be followed?
Yes, the argument goes that it is unconstitutional tpo pass a law that says only US laws can be applied in us courts.
How can it be unconstitutional? Where is it written that other laws, not passed by our process, must be followed?
A viewpoint neutral law of general application is a viewpoint neutral law of general application.
One wonders though how this law will affect the tradition in American jurisprudence of applying the Common Law of England in all controversies where no applicable constitutional article, or statute of the state in question or of the federal code, creates a change.
Robbed of this foundation, our courts may flounder in some unexpected ways.
Traditionally, foreign law, which includes the law of another state of the United States, in state courts, may be cited as persuasive, but not as mandatory authority.
I am unaware of a single instance where any Islamic precept has been cited as persuasive authority in an American court. (And I read Fousesquawk).
There was a case in NJ a few years ago (I think it involved a Muslim woman trying to get a restraining order against her husband.) where the judge ruled in favor of the husband citing Islamic religious law. It was overturned by a higher court.
Given the unpredictablility of wacko judges making wacko rulings a little preventative medicine doesn't hurt.
You mean like in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, where a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions? When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”
No, you probably mean SD v. MJR, where a wife sought a restraining order against her husband, alleging that he repeatedly beat and sexually assaulted her. The judge denied her request, holding that the defendant did not form the criminal intent necessary to commit the crime, because his genuine religious beliefs dictated that he was entitled to sexual relations upon demand. The ruling was wrong—both under state law and Sharia—and, not surprisingly, the New Jersey Appellate Court reversed it in 2010.
That's what appellate courts are for. Anyone see the difference? A private contract, freely entered into, that does not contradict public policy (that is civilly no different than any other pre-nup), and allowing a party's religious beliefs to contravene public policy?
Simple. Now, can we move on to things that really need doing?
Siarlys,
You asked for an example and I gave it though you filled in the blanks. Appellate courts aside it proves my point. perhaps, the NJ judge wouldn't have made his error if he had been prevented from considering what the defendants religion led him to do.
Its not a matter of "foreign laws" Gary, it's a matter of allowing "sincere religious beliefs" to trump the rights of others. What if the husband had been Amish? Aryan Nations? Westboro Baptist Church? It would still have been a sincere religious belief...
What was your favorite phrase? "Oh ye suckers..."
Post a Comment