Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

I STRONGLY disagree. Since when is protecting a child from maiming a strictly a states rights issue? Anybody ever heard of the Bill of Rights? If I am wrong,WHY are so many racial discrimination cases tried in feral courts? 

This is round one @sneakypete .... the judge decided this was a local, state criminal act.  He also partially based his decision of this not being interstate commerce and I think that's a weaker link.  In any event, this will be appealed and then the SC will most likely be petitioned. 

In any event, legal minds greater than mine should be working on reconciling state v federal jurisdiction now ... before Sharia blows up in our faces.

(IMHO, of course  )

[sneakypete]

Let's call this Plan B @sneakypete   

Plan A should be a determination of what is Federal jurisdiction and what is State jurisdiction when it comes to the practices of Sharia law.  Because Sharia law is here.

@Right_in_Virginia

I have a personal zero tolerance policy when it comes to people abusing children. Right or wrong,that's where I live and where I draw a line in the sand.

[sneakypete]

This is round one @sneakypete .... the judge decided this was a local, state criminal act.  He also partially based his decision of this not being interstate commerce and I think that's a weaker link.  In any event, this will be appealed and then the SC will most likely be petitioned. 

In any event, legal minds greater than mine should be working on reconciling state v federal jurisdiction now ... before Sharia blows up in our faces.

(IMHO, of course  )

@Right_in_Virginia

This is America. We live under Constitutional Law,NOT Sharia Law. Any Muslims that aren't happy with that are free to leave. I will even be happy to help them find a border.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

This is America. We live under Constitutional Law,NOT Sharia Law. Any Muslims that aren't happy with that are free to leave. I will even be happy to help them find a border.

I agree @sneakypete   But presenting sharia law as religious law brings us into murky water.  For instance, I think parents who refuse medical care for their child based on religion --- most especially if the child dies from a treatable ailment --- should be prosecuted.  Many US judges do not agree with me....it's that freedom of religion thing.

Sharia law needs to be addressed now .... and the laws and constitution basis for them need to be bulletproof so they are not overturned by the 9th circus.

[sneakypete]

I agree @sneakypete   But presenting sharia law as religious law brings us into murky water.  For instance, I think parents who refuse medical care for their child based on religion --- most especially if the child dies from a treatable ailment --- should be prosecuted.  Many US judges do not agree with me....it's that freedom of religion thing.

 

@Right_in_Virginia

I can't quote you the cases from memory,but I have been reading about cases where courts ruled that parents did NOT have the right to deny medical care for their children based on their religious beliefs for my whole life. I have even read about cases where the parents packed up their children and fled to avoid giving them medical treatment,and they were tracked down by US Marshalls.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

I can't quote you the cases from memory,but I have been reading about cases where courts ruled that parents did NOT have the right to deny medical care for their children based on their religious beliefs for my whole life. I have even read about cases where the parents packed up their children and fled to avoid giving them medical treatment,and they were tracked down by US Marshalls.

Post a link to this, if you get a moment @sneakypete

[sneakypete]

Post a link to this, if you get a moment @sneakypete

@Right_in_Virginia

I don't know if there are any links. I read about these cases in newspapers before there was such a thing as the internet.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

I don't know if there are any links. I read about these cases in newspapers before there was such a thing as the internet.

Okay.

[sneakypete]

Okay.

@Right_in_Virginia

Here is a place to start. In one of the first one it lists cases where parents were convicted and sent to prison,but were later released on appeals.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Religious+sects+oppossed+to+medicine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

[Chosen Daughter]

Federal Ban on Female Genital Mutilation Ruled Unconstitutional by Judge

More than two decades ago, Congress adopted a sweeping law that outlawed female genital mutilation, an ancient practice that 200 million women and girls around the world have undergone. But a federal court considering the first legal challenge to the statute found the law unconstitutional on Tuesday, greatly diminishing the chances of it being used by federal prosecutors around the country.

A federal judge in Michigan issued the ruling in a case that involved two doctors and  four parents, among others, who had been criminally charged last year with participating in or enabling the ritual genital cutting of girls. Their families belong to a small Shiite Muslim sect, the Dawoodi Bohra, that is originally from western India.

The case, the first to be brought under the 1996 law that criminalized female genital mutilation, has been closely followed by human rights advocates and communities where cutting is still practiced and whose members have moved in growing numbers to the United States and other western countries....


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/health/fgm-female-genital-mutilation-law.html

Sharia Law in the United States

[TomSea]

Islamic clerics have stood up for this, FGM, and other practices ... though, some of these things are not directly in the Koran I am told. Something to know, in case, one ever comes across it in debate.

[Free Vulcan]

The Commerce Clause has been used by the Judiciary to support almost silly laws.

Now that it's a Muslim practice on the line, suddenly they want to draw restraints?

What a load of crap.

[jmyrlefuller]

The Commerce Clause has been used by the Judiciary to support almost silly laws.

Now that it's a Muslim practice on the line, suddenly they want to draw restraints?

What a load of crap.

All while willfully ignoring the 5th Amendment rights to life, liberty and property. I mean, if Roe v. Wade can conjure a woman's sovereign right to her body, a FGM law should easily be covered under that penumbra. Especially since, well, there's no other human life being terminated.

[Oceander]

Funny watching some people who so loudly proclaim states rights and the limited nature of the federal government suddenly becoming federal tyrants because a Muslim is involved. Pharisees and hypocrites. 

[sneakypete]

Funny watching some people who so loudly proclaim states rights and the limited nature of the federal government suddenly becoming federal tyrants because a Muslim is involved. Pharisees and hypocrites.

@Oceander

Are you a professional fool,or is this just something you do for a hobby?

The FOCUS here is on child mutilation,NOT politics,you freaking idiot! Take your partisan politics BS,roll them into a fine tube,and stick them in your ear until blood starts pouring.

Go back to DU. They must be short a few dummies by now,and they probably miss you.

[Bigun]

Yet another Federal district court judge GREATLY exceeding his authority!  When will this idiocy be stopped?

[Right_in_Virginia]

More here:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,341139.0.html

@Machiavelli

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Funny watching some people who so loudly proclaim states rights and the limited nature of the federal government suddenly becoming federal tyrants because a Muslim is involved. Pharisees and hypocrites.

Because 'a Muslim is involved'?

What has that got to do with female mutilation?

That's like saying hanging is illegal if done to blacks.

[Free Vulcan]

All while willfully ignoring the 5th Amendment rights to life, liberty and property. I mean, if Roe v. Wade can conjure a woman's sovereign right to her body, a FGM law should easily be covered under that penumbra. Especially since, well, there's no other human life being terminated.

Excellent point J.

[Chosen Daughter]

All while willfully ignoring the 5th Amendment rights to life, liberty and property. I mean, if Roe v. Wade can conjure a woman's sovereign right to her body, a FGM law should easily be covered under that penumbra. Especially since, well, there's no other human life being terminated.

Rogue court that doesn't apply Constitutional Law.  They have their own set of laws dictated by Socialism and globalism.

[Chosen Daughter]

Excellent point J.

I thought so too.  Most excellent.

[Chosen Daughter]

@Oceander

Are you a professional fool,or is this just something you do for a hobby?

The FOCUS here is on child mutilation,NOT politics,you freaking idiot! Take your partisan politics BS,roll them into a fine tube,and stick them in your ear until blood starts pouring.

Go back to DU. They must be short a few dummies by now,and they probably miss you.

No, just the member with liberal talking points.   Apparently see no right for children.  No right to choose what they want for their bodies. 

[Emjay]

The Commerce Clause has been used by the Judiciary to support almost silly laws.

Now that it's a Muslim practice on the line, suddenly they want to draw restraints?

What a load of crap.

I think you forget that there are no Obama judges, no Clinton judges ... only totally fair and impartial judges.  Try to keep up.

[Oceander]

Because 'a Muslim is involved'?

What has that got to do with female mutilation?

That's like saying hanging is illegal if done to blacks.

So, where does the Constitution give the federal government control over simple assault?  Where is the federal issue?

[Oceander]

No, just the member with liberal talking points.   Apparently see no right for children.  No right to choose what they want for their bodies. 

Boy are you a clueless git.  I specifically asked upthread why the judge hadn’t properly considered the interstate commerce clause hook, which is typically how Congress gets authority to legislate on many isssues, and since several of the children were taken across state lines, that would be the basis for federal jurisdiction.  @Right_in_Virginia pointed out that the judge blew that basis off, and I agreed with her that that was a strong basis for an appeal. 

Congress does not have power to legislate against child abuse as such; there has to be some basis that allows Congress to legislate in a particular subject.  Interstate commerce is about the only hook here.

But all I see here from idiots like you is irrational emoting about it how Congress must clearly have the power to make this illegal because you think it should be illegal.  That’s what liberals do.