Wingnut: We Need Right Wing Judges to Prevent Non-Existent Problem

Deranged bigot Frank Gaffney is still pushing a report he helped put together that purported to prove that American courts are enforcing Sharia law and actually proved the exact opposite. He asked a congressman about it and they agreed that we need conservative judges to prevent this entirely fictitious problem:

Last week on “Secure Freedom Radio,” Frank Gaffney asked Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., about Gaffney’s discredited report on the use of Sharia law in the U.S., telling the congressman that the judiciary is bending to the wishes of the Muslim Brotherhood to use Islamic jurisprudence in the court system.

Marino told Gaffney that America needs a president who is “not going to step back and allow this kind of activity to take place in our court rooms.”

“We need conservative judges, we need a conservative president who will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court and to the appellate court and the district court as well where this issue can be snuffed out immediately when the defendant tries to raise the issue,” Marino said.

I debunked the study in question case by case shortly after it was released. Every single example I looked at showed the exact opposite of what they claimed. In every case, the court actually refused to enforce Islamic law. This “study” just took every instance where someone tried to invoke Islamic law, nearly always in divorce or custody cases, and claimed that it was an example of the courts enforcing Sharia. They were lying, quite blatantly. But since it’s a lie that scares people and keeps the money flowing in, they’ll keep telling it as often and as loudly as they can.

"I think Swanson has confused Burning Man with the Wicker Man."

Swanson Thinks Burning Man Wants to ..."
"Men and women of the (whole) cloth have been fleecing the multitudes ever since . ..."

Swanson Thinks Burning Man Wants to ..."
"Yeah, but who can write their name in the snow the best?"

Trump’s Meaningless ‘Shift’ in Afghanistan Policy
"Well, he got us to stop talking about Russian-supported Nazis...at least until we realize the ..."

Trump’s Meaningless ‘Shift’ in Afghanistan Policy
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chiroptera

    “…where this issue can be snuffed out immediately when the defendant tries to raise the issue,” Marino said.

    Ed Brayton: Every single example I looked at showed the exact opposite of what they claimed. In every case, the court actually refused to enforce Islamic law.

    I don’t think that was his point. I think they’re saying that we know a priori that what they want is wrong and so there is no need for the court to even listen to the issue to determine the facts and how they relate to the Constitution and the law. In other words, anytime the a judge sees the word “Muslim” or “Islam,” the judge needn’t read any further; just rule “denied” or “guilty” as appropriate for the case.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Chiroptera “In other words, anytime the a judge sees the word ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’, the judge needn’t read any further; just rule ‘denied’ or ‘guilty’” as appropriate for the case.”

    Like “black” now.

  • moarscienceplz

    Extreme dishonesty in the defense of liberty is no vice! Moderation in the grabbing of power and money is no virtue!

  • machintelligence

    No need to listen to pleas of innocence from the accused, either. “We know those people lie all of the time.”

  • Sastra

    “We need conservative judges, we need a conservative president who will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court and to the appellate court and the district court as well …

    Be careful what you wish for. Sharia law is conservative, as are those who follow it. You should be screaming for liberal judges. If it mattered — which it doesn’t.

  • screechymonkey

    The one way I can imagine Sharia law being “enforced” in U.S. courts is through arbitration agreements. And conservative judges never met an arbitration agreement they weren’t willing to enforce, usually because it’s a large corporation trying to enforce one over the objection of workers or consumers.

    So if you’re really horrified by the thought, you should want liberal judges.