Democrat Governor Vetoes Ban on “Foreign Laws”
In another example for the you-gotta-be-kidding-me file …
Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have banned the use of foreign laws in American courts. The legislation would prevent judges from using Sharia Law, Canon Law and other foreign laws or regulations as the basis for court decisions in Arizona. In some instances, such foreign laws allow honor killing, forced and underage marriages, genital mutilation, child labor, polygamy and other customs inconsistent with American law.
The problem is clear. American courts exist to apply American law rooted in the Constitution and principles of equality and due process. Yet attempts to import foreign legal systems persist. Judges have confronted arguments based on Sharia that excuse spousal abuse or limit women’s financial rights in divorce. In New Jersey, a trial judge initially denied a protective order to a woman who had been repeatedly beaten and raped. The court cited deference to Islamic law. An appellate court corrected the ruling, but the initial decision exposed the risk.
In other states, husbands have invoked religious marriage contracts to minimize obligations to ex-wives. Informal tribunals have operated under foreign codes within immigrant communities. Canon Law has influenced some family and inheritance disputes. These examples illustrate why explicit protection for domestic law remains necessary.
Governor Hobbs rejected the bipartisan legislation. She claimed that Sharia law and its abhorrent practices do not and will not exist in Arizona. She added that existing statutes already provide adequate safeguards and that the bill would trigger costly lawsuits.
While the invocation of foreign laws is not common, it is growing – and expected to grow even more with the ascendancy of left-wing policies, as seen in recent elections. Even if only as prophylactic, opposition to the proposed legislation is more left-wing stupidity.
One struggles to accept Hobbs’ serene dismissal. If the threat is truly imaginary, why fear a statute that merely restates the obvious? The veto preserves ambiguity. It theoretically would allow foreign visitors who break American laws to argue that the customs or statutes of their homeland should govern their liability. Such a result would fracture the unity of the legal system.
This veto stands as the latest example of left-wing Democrats undermining America’s customs and rule of law. They oppose immigration enforcement and defend sanctuary jurisdictions that nullify federal authority. They insist that biological males may compete in women’s sports, displacing female athletes and undermining sex-based categories. They support housing men in women’s prisons, disregarding the safety of female inmates. They elevate identity-based curricula in schools that prioritize grievance over merit. They characterize voter identification requirements as suppression rather than prudent protection of electoral integrity. In each instance, longstanding American norms bend to ideological pressure.
By vetoing this measure, Governor Hobbs has contributed to the pattern. She has chosen to leave Arizona courts without an added layer of clarity against foreign legal influences. The people of the state deserve leaders who defend the principle that one law applies to all within its borders, without exception for imported customs that contradict constitutional values. This decision falls short of that responsibility.
So, there ‘tis.
Parallel issue, China has attempted over and over again to enforce its laws within the U.S. even to the point of having its own “police station” in New York which they said was to “help” the U.S. in policing Chinese immigrants. They threaten Chinese Americans with impunity and cite their own laws as reasons to coerce. It makes this action by Hobbs even more tone deaf.
Larry, The point you miss here (surprise-not really!) is this was an unnecessary law. When have any of the examples you posited been used in an American court of law (much less successfully)? It goes without saying that American laws prevail in American courts, so making a law that prevents sharia, genitalia mutilation, honor killings from being used in court is just plain stupid-but what else can we expect from a fool like yourself who works desperately to take the focus off the most corrupt regime in history and the ass kissing republicans elected to Congress? (And yes, I am mad, mad at you for promoting a regime that makes us the laughing stock of the world…)
Mike f as in faggot it’s idiots like you that bring reproach on the country. If everyone were like you and Dunger we wouldn’t have a country.
Howeird Whitesheeple. You seem to have an obsession to bring Mike and I together. Idiots like you are so binary, you only see black and white, us and them. You have no brains, little depth and absolutely nothing interesting to say. “Bring reproach on the country?” What does that even fucking mean? You pulling a 50-cent work from your memory? Why does an upstanding magarat like the Whitesheeple even care about foreign reproach. Or from US liberals even? And you conclude that reproach is the end of the country? You are Howeird.
Why the fuck do you believe that if America was 100%, liberal, the country would not exist. I mean the county you assholes are creating can’t even get people to celebrate our 250th people shun you and your ilk. Even God is sending Hell’s heat for your festivities. Just go find some gold foil and cover something.
Mike nailed this one; it’s an irrelevant, unnecessary law. IF someone attempted to use Sharia Law in Arizona, we would probably have much bigger problems than it’s legality. Why not ban all laws from Martians while you are at it? Or some mandatory loyalty pledges? A few NDA’s before entering public school.
Whitesheeple, you are too ignorant to speak to issues, you just spew slime about people and personalities. You seem to live to demean. You are as useless as a spent rubber, offering no value whatsoever to the conversation. At least Mike discussed the issues intelligently, something you seem incapable of.
Love to see you actually attempt to debate an issue. What a joke of a concept for people like you.
Frank Danger … You need to do your research. The consideration of foreign law is not uncommon. Here are just a few examples. You your own state of New Jersey, a trial judge denied a domestic violence restraining order and downplayed sexual assault allegations, partly citing the husband’s religious beliefs under Islamic law that a wife must comply with sexual demands. Multiple courts have addressed postponed dowry provisions (mahr) in Islamic marriage contracts. Examples: Akileh v. Elchahal (Florida, 1996) Enforced a $50,000 mahr based on Islamic contract law; Odatalla v. Odatalla (New Jersey again) enforced a $10,000 mahr alongside equitable distribution. Islamic contract law was considered in Aziz v. Aziz (New York) and Afghahi v. Ghafoorian (Virginia). In foreign Islamic divorces and custody (comity), American courts have differed to Sharia law. In the Texas Mariam Ayad case, a trial judge compelled arbitration per a prenuptial agreement specifying Sharia/Islamic law. There are also cases in which American courts have stood aside to allow foreign tribunal settle disputes and even address crimes. There are also cases in which forient law and culture influenced sentencing, including honor killings. If you dig deeper, you will find a lot more examples. The law in Arizona should become a national standard.
Larry Horist said: “You need to do your research. The consideration of foreign law is not uncommon.”
The NJ case immediately went to appeal and was appealed in under a year. The judge was chastised for holding religious law above state law.
Of course, conservatives like Larry have weakened this during their religious onslaught against the State during Covid.
The second two, on the mahrs, they are upheld because the court views it as a valid secular contract covered under neutral contract laws under our civil law. IOW, religion was tossed out as a factor.
Since the right things got done here, why do we need more laws written over top?
I am not going further into your “research.” The system works. Why conservatives are busy writing more and more unnecessary laws seems counterintuitive to their claims of removing and reducing overzealous laws and regulations.