Thread: Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •