Montana Democrat Governor Allows Sharia Law in State Courts

[rangerrebew]

Montana Democrat Governor Allows Sharia Law in State Courts

Jim Hoft Apr 9th, 2017 12:57 pm 253 Comments

Montana Democrat Governor Steve Bullock vetoed legislation that would ban Sharia Law from state courts.

It was Islamophobic legislation.
US News reported:

    Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a bill that would have banned Shariah and other foreign laws from being used in Montana courts, saying Thursday that the measure would “upend our legal system and debase what we stand for as Montanans and Americans.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/montana-democrat-governor-allows-sharia-law-state-courts/

[Hondo69]

I'm really confused, but that's my normal state these days.

Montana needs a law to remind judges they live in the U.S. and laws from other countries don't apply?

[Cripplecreek]

I'm really confused, but that's my normal state these days.

Montana needs a law to remind judges they live in the U.S. and laws from other countries don't apply?

The constitution guarantees 1 law for all.

[skeeter]

I'm really confused, but that's my normal state these days.

Montana needs a law to remind judges they live in the U.S. and laws from other countries don't apply?

Leftists automatically oppose anything normal Americans believe. They live to stick their thumb in our eye.

[TomSea]

See, this has been brought up before and for some time, America has allowed Jewish courts, Rabbinical Courts, Beth Dins. I gather if logic says it could be allowed for Jewish law then? And most of these Rabbinical Courts are for civil matters from what I can tell. I don't agree with having a Shariah Court but I'm stumped when these other courts can be pointed out. If such a court is mainly among Muslims and deals with Civil matters such as Divorce, Contracts and not crimes such as stealing, etc., perhaps there is no great wrong here. At the least, how can one allow one of these courts for a religion but not the other?

Rabbinical court to Lubavitchers: Quit yer snitchin' about cops, crime to outsiders
BY Simone Weichselbaum  DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, December 10, 2010, 4:00 AM

A Brooklyn rabbinical court has a new commandment for the thousands of religious Jews under its jurisdiction: Thou shall not snitch.

The Beth Din of Crown Heights has ordered an estimated 10,000 members of the Lubavitch Hasidic sect not to gripe about cops or blab about crimes to outsiders.

Continued: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/rabbinical-court-lubavitchers-quit-yer-snitchin-cops-crime-outsiders-article-1.470554

[endicom]

See, this has been brought up before and for some time, America has allowed Jewish courts, Rabbinical Courts, Beth Dins. I gather if logic says it could be allowed for Jewish law then? And most of these Rabbinical Courts are for civil matters from what I can tell. I don't agree with having a Shariah Court but I'm stumped when these other courts can be pointed out. If such a court is mainly among Muslims and deals with Civil matters such as Divorce, Contracts and not crimes such as stealing, etc., perhaps there is no great wrong here. At the least, how can one allow one of these courts for a religion but not the other?

The article, if correct, is about Shariah law in the courts. What you reference is settling disputes without resort to the courts.

If Menachem won't repay Moishe some money owed then that matter can be settled by religious authorities before any need for legal recourse. If Menachem murders Moishe then the standard legal procedure must be followed.

[r9etb]

Montana Democrat Governor Allows Sharia Law in State Courts

Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a bill that would have banned Shariah and other foreign laws from being used in Montana courts

Jim Hoft wouldn't know logic if it reached up and bit him in the @ss.

[driftdiver]

See, this has been brought up before and for some time, America has allowed Jewish courts, Rabbinical Courts, Beth Dins. I gather if logic says it could be allowed for Jewish law then? And most of these Rabbinical Courts are for civil matters from what I can tell. I don't agree with having a Shariah Court but I'm stumped when these other courts can be pointed out. If such a court is mainly among Muslims and deals with Civil matters such as Divorce, Contracts and not crimes such as stealing, etc., perhaps there is no great wrong here. At the least, how can one allow one of these courts for a religion but not the other?

@TomSea
How about all of those other pesky areas of law; ya know the killing of infidels, sex with children, slavery, honor killings, multiple wives, wife beating and so on. 

Does a muslim wife have rights during a divorce in your view or only non-muslim women? 

Good grief this is surprising even for you tom.

[geronl]

?

Governors don't control the courts, do they?

[Cripplecreek]

?

Governors don't control the courts, do they?

Not in my state they don't.

[montanajoe]

Nobody is using Sharia law in Montana courts, never have never will..., actually the statute didn't even mention Sharia law...

This is just the idiot politicians playing games with other...the normal folks up here have common sense and just get on with lives...we elect these idiots to make fools of themselves for a few weeks every 2 years strictly for the entertainment value . 

[roamer_1]

Nobody is using Sharia law in Montana courts, never have never will..., actually the statute didn't even mention Sharia law...

This is just the idiot politicians playing games with other...the normal folks up here have common sense and just get on with lives...we elect these idiots to make fools of themselves for a few weeks every 2 years strictly for the entertainment value .

YUP.

[r9etb]

Nobody is using Sharia law in Montana courts, never have never will..., actually the statute didn't even mention Sharia law...

Unfortunately, the execrable Jim Hoft couldn't be bothered with such common reasoning.....