Oh, Kansas

[Rage Against the McKee]

This is an odd thread, considering the legislature ended its session a few weeks ago.

Yes, and what a session it was.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-26/kansas-governor-signs-anti-sharia-law/55224584/1

 

http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/03/29/house-approves-kansas-law-legalize-discrimination#.T-NKvRRuVYB.facebook

 

It's ironic that the same person could be against both of these laws.

no it isn't

thousands of dead LGBT would disagree.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/kansas-abortion-bill_n_1478706.html

The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) told HuffPost in February that he would sign the bill, which he said he had not read.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/11/482888/kansas-senate-stops-anti-abortion-bill/?mobile=nc

Well, maybe next year, guys.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-26/kansas-governor-signs-anti-sharia-law/55224584/1

 

http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/03/29/house-approves-kansas-law-legalize-discrimination#.T-NKvRRuVYB.facebook

 

It's ironic that the same person could be against both of these laws.

no it isn't

thousands of dead LGBT would disagree.

The courts are not using Sharia Law to determine the outcomes of cases. They would if the US or the State of Kansas were to adopt Sharia Law, but then Sharia Law would no longer be a foreign law and this bill would be worthless. It's just a waste of time and taxpayer money for the legislature to actually pass this bill.

[CNS]

You obvs didn't read the example of how some muslim lady could refuse to remove her head scarf while in court.

Pfft

[Mr Bread]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-26/kansas-governor-signs-anti-sharia-law/55224584/1

 

http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/03/29/house-approves-kansas-law-legalize-discrimination#.T-NKvRRuVYB.facebook

 

It's ironic that the same person could be against both of these laws.

no it isn't

thousands of dead LGBT would disagree.

The courts are not using Sharia Law to determine the outcomes of cases. They would if the US or the State of Kansas were to adopt Sharia Law, but then Sharia Law would no longer be a foreign law and this bill would be worthless. It's just a waste of time and taxpayer money for the legislature to actually pass this bill.

I agree that it's wasteful political grandstanding, but at least theoretically it's not totally worthless/without effect.  For example, consider the case/use of persuasive authority or precedent:   

"Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc. In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court."

Very unlikely, but a Kansas state court could in theory refer to Sharia law and adopt it in a case of first impression.  Thus making it Kansas case law without any say by the legislature or Governor; their fear. 

[bubbles4ksu]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-26/kansas-governor-signs-anti-sharia-law/55224584/1

 

http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/03/29/house-approves-kansas-law-legalize-discrimination#.T-NKvRRuVYB.facebook

 

It's ironic that the same person could be against both of these laws.

no it isn't

thousands of dead LGBT would disagree.

The courts are not using Sharia Law to determine the outcomes of cases. They would if the US or the State of Kansas were to adopt Sharia Law, but then Sharia Law would no longer be a foreign law and this bill would be worthless. It's just a waste of time and taxpayer money for the legislature to actually pass this bill.

I agree that it's wasteful political grandstanding, but at least theoretically it's not totally worthless/without effect.  For example, consider the case/use of persuasive authority or precedent:   

"Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc. In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court."

Very unlikely, but a Kansas state court could in theory refer to Sharia law and adopt it in a case of first impression.  Thus making it Kansas case law without any say by the legislature or Governor; their fear.

they could wait till sharia made her way into the law and pass a statute overturning it just as easily and without condoning proactive islamaphobia.

[Mr Bread]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-26/kansas-governor-signs-anti-sharia-law/55224584/1

 

http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/03/29/house-approves-kansas-law-legalize-discrimination#.T-NKvRRuVYB.facebook

 

It's ironic that the same person could be against both of these laws.

no it isn't

thousands of dead LGBT would disagree.

The courts are not using Sharia Law to determine the outcomes of cases. They would if the US or the State of Kansas were to adopt Sharia Law, but then Sharia Law would no longer be a foreign law and this bill would be worthless. It's just a waste of time and taxpayer money for the legislature to actually pass this bill.

I agree that it's wasteful political grandstanding, but at least theoretically it's not totally worthless/without effect.  For example, consider the case/use of persuasive authority or precedent:   

"Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc. In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court."

Very unlikely, but a Kansas state court could in theory refer to Sharia law and adopt it in a case of first impression.  Thus making it Kansas case law without any say by the legislature or Governor; their fear.

they could wait till sharia made her way into the law and pass a statute overturning it just as easily and without condoning proactive islamaphobia.

Reactionary bigotry doesn't make nearly the media splash, and it's more work because it's piecemeal.  Plus, what if Kansans get a taste for Muslimy-type justice?  Then it's too late.  It's like legal herpes.  Once you've caught it, you can only suppress the outbreaks, you can't cure it.  Profilactic Islmaphobia it is then.  These guys know what they're doing.