I Get Mail - 2

'Dear Friend of the National Committee To Defend America,1

'Should Muslim Law replace the U.S. Constitution in America's courtrooms?

'That's the debate raging at the U.S. Supreme Court…'

What??!

'Liberal, pro-ACLU Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor say YES: Foreign Law --  including Muslim Law -- CAN supercede [sic] the U.S. Constitution.  

'Leftist Ruth Bader Ginsberg says: "I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law."

'And leftist Sonia Sotomayor says: "International law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled issues in our own legal system."

Oh.  I think I've got it.  (And Chief Justice John Roberts apparently hasn't, yet.2)  

Laws are, the Constitution is, a matter of the likes of 'living documents;' is that it, Sonia and Ruth?? There are no absolutes; all is relative???…

Let me tell you something about contracts, Ruth and Sonia, that apparently you don't understand:

They are not made to be broken.  They are made to be adhered to.

And this brings up another subject; which I'll address in a little clumsy rhyming way:

          It's moot.

I'm taking over now.

                 Here

At the end of History

                        as we

Have known it.

 …and this is what we get

Bt letting females

Be judges

Over us.

                Heart

Not head

Ruling the country.
             Emotion
Over Reason.

('And think of all those poor
Illegal alien children.
                          As a mother,
 I tell you - '
What, Judge?  That the law
Must be tempered with mercy?
But it already is, even
When administered properly.)

It may be good

                   but

It is not right

In the grander

Scheme of things

Than local politics.

But surely - you say - this is over-egging the matter a little.  Surely, 'they' would never let Muslim law into this country.  After all, considering the Islamic attitude towards women, and all??…

Then consider this mailing, that 'accompanied' the one above in my mail very recently as well; this one from an outfit calling itself 'Remember America's Heritage,' on whose envelope was the following message:

'A judge recently ruled: "This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law, pursuant to the Qur'an."  Was that judge presiding over a case in: a. Iran; b. Pakistan; c. United States.'

The answer is - should be - obvious, by now.

I rest my case.

Except just to add a couple of facts:

     1) 'A study by the Center for Security Policy reported there have already been 50 court cases in 23 states where Muslim Law was used to render a verdict.   

     2) 'For example, in New Jersey a Muslim man was acquired in court of raping his wife because the liberal judge said Muslim Law required wives to submit to their husbands.'    (emphases in original throughout)

And the final fact:

Not in my country you won't.

--- 

footnotes:

1 'A Special Project of America's Survival, Inc.'

2 'On the other hand, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says NO to Foreign and Muslim Law.

     'He says: "If we're relying on a decision from a [foreign] judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge."'

     So far, so good.  But, read on…

     (hint: It's a matter of interpretation.)