Federal Appeals Court Tells Voters Their Votes Don’t Matter Anymore

One of the most basic principles of freedom in America is the right to vote and to have your vote count.  Thousands of lives have been lost and many more maimed to give us that freedom and to protect it.  Millions of people in other nations would love to have the right to vote on matters that would affect their lives.  To so many people worldwide, there is almost nothing more precious than the freedom to vote.

However, here in America, we are seeing a frightening trend where a court consisting of just one judge to as many as nine judges in the Supreme Court that take it upon themselves to tell American voters that their votes don’t count.

I recall a measure some years back where nearly 75% of voters in a southwestern state voted in favor of an English only bill.  The bill was intended to save the state, county and city governments as well as employers thousands of dollars by not having to print everything in English and Spanish.  It only took one liberal judge to declare the bill unconstitutional, thus telling the majority of the voters in that state that their votes didn’t matter.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Why Isn’t The FBI Investigating George Soros?

There have been similar cases over the years and now we have another instance where the judicial system is telling Oklahoma voters that their votes don’t matter.

In 2010, 70% of Oklahoma voters voted in favor of State Question 755.  SQ 755 was an amendment to the state constitution that barred courts from looking to the laws of other nations, especially Sharia laws when making their rulings in cases before them.  The exact wording in the measure is, “Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

Sponsor of the bill, State Senator Anthony Sykes explained that the goal of the measure was intended to restrict judges in Oklahoma to apply only US and state laws when they render their decisions.  This also meant that judges were not to turn to any laws, including religious laws from other nations.

Even though the measure received enough popular votes to amend the state constitution, Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma objected and challenged the amendment in court.  A liberal court ruled in his favor, forcing the case to go before a federal court of appeals.

Because the proponents of the amendment could not produce any examples where judges in Oklahoma have used foreign or Sharia law in rendering a decision, the appeals court ruled to block the amendment from taking effect.  Even though proponents said the use of Sharia law in the wording was just an example of any foreign religious laws, the appellate court stated “That argument conflicts with the amendment’s plain language, which mentions Shariah law in two places.”

In response to the appeals court ruling, Awad said, “This serves as a reminder that these anti-Shariah laws are unconstitutional and that if politicians use fear-mongering and bigotry, the courts won’t allow it to last for long.”

Sharia is the Muslim policy of combining law with the religion of Islam.  They claim it is intended to guide them to Allah and is founded in compassion and mercy.  Mind you their interpretation of compassion and mercy includes honor killings of women for a variety of reasons.

I just watched a program that interviewrd a Muslim man in Bahrain who shot his sister in the head four times because she had been raped.  Although she was the victim of a brutal crime, her violation brought shame to the family.  In the interview, the brother equated his sister to a dinner plate.  If the plate gets broken, it’s no longer of use so you dispose of it.  Then he said that in the case of a woman it’s the same thing, once she has been violated, she is of no use and it’s best to discard her to avoid any further shame to the family.

This is what Sharia law is about and this is what the people of Oklahoma wanted to prevent. But because one Muslim objected to the amendment, two courts so far have ruled that the personal views of the one outweigh the vote of 70% of the people.  In other words, their votes meant absolutely nothing.

The ironic aspect of this case is that the courts in the US have been repeatedly ruling against Christians and laws protecting Christianity while the courts repeatedly seem to defend Muslims and Sharia law.  But this shouldn’t surprise you knowing that we have a Muslim president who has systematically replaced Christianity with Islam in all aspects of government, law, foreign policy and American life.

Previous Senator Jim DeMint: Listen to Ron Paul
Next Dead People Voting in New Hampshire Primary – Why Democrats Don’t Want Photo ID


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.