Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge

[Novaheart]

Here is another version of events, JB.

Just for the halibut.

The judge and his staff have been moved to another location. It's not as good as seeing him fired, but in the world of operations (ie how a schoolmarm rules the world) he is now the problem in the view of his superiors.

The point in case you missed it, is that this judge crossed the line. He has no First Amendment protection while he is wearing that robe. If he wants to make stupid remarks on his own time that's his business. But no judge is supposed to be chastising an American for being disrespectful to Islam. Islam is a cancer.

[Odysseus]

The judge and his staff have been moved to another location. It's not as good as seeing him fired, but in the world of operations (ie how a schoolmarm rules the world) he is now the problem in the view of his superiors.

The point in case you missed it, is that this judge crossed the line. He has no First Amendment protection while he is wearing that robe. If he wants to make stupid remarks on his own time that's his business. But no judge is supposed to be chastising an American for being disrespectful to Islam. Islam is a cancer.

We don't know that he crossed the line. The information on what he said is now conflicted, and it's not being disputed by the usual suspects. If he actually said, "I'm not a Muslim, and I'm offended," instead of "I'm a Muslim and I'm offended," then what he was saying is that the plaintiff's conduct offended him even though he had no personal religious beliefs at stake in the case. It's still prejudicial, and not appropriate for a judge to state, but it's not a deliberate attempt to undermine our legal system by introducing Sharia precedents.

[Novaheart]

We don't know that he crossed the line. The information on what he said is now conflicted, and it's not being disputed by the usual suspects. If he actually said, "I'm not a Muslim, and I'm offended," instead of "I'm a Muslim and I'm offended," then what he was saying is that the plaintiff's conduct offended him even though he had no personal religious beliefs at stake in the case. It's still prejudicial, and not appropriate for a judge to state, but it's not a deliberate attempt to undermine our legal system by introducing Sharia precedents.

Oh, I didn't think Sharia had anything to do with his ruling- the Sharia shit is just a catchy headline. I think if he was upset enough to lecture Perce on respecting Islam (May ALlah be fucked by a camel) , in a case where the feelings of the defendant are utterly irrelevant, then I think he's clearly not objective, which is indeed required of him. Calling someone a name or insulting him is not a just cause for ignoring the evidence that he attacked you. That's not what "fighting words doctrine" means.