Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 4 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 6 (10 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Scalia Brings Sharia Law and Blank Paper Law to Supreme Court

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 2   Must Read 1   News 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 6/23/11

- Advertisement -
As I have said similarly about economics, I have one qualification that allows me to speak with supreme authority about law.  I am not a lawyer.

A reading of the opinion by Antonin Scalia in the case of the lawsuit brought against Walmart by women who work there because they were discriminated against in pay and position proves the above.

Scalia did not address the proven discrimination in his opinion.  He did not want to blatantly uphold discrimination by ruling for Walmart and against the women.  He weaseled out of it by ruling for Walmart that women as a whole have no right to seek redress for grievances, even though that right is granted in the Constitution.

The greatest effect of Sharia Law is the oppression of women.  Under Sharia Law women have no right to seek redress for grievances, or any other right to do just about anything. The Muslim clerics even have Sharia Law guidelines on how to properly beat your wife.

Scalia has brought the same basic principle of Sharia Law, oppression of women, to a ruling from the Supreme Court.  And, in violation of the Constitution.

By the way, even though Scalia refers to himself as Justice Scalia, the Constitution provides only for the appointment of "Judges" to the Supreme Court, not "Justices."  Look it up, Scalia.

Now, about that expertise as to the law.  I read, speak and understand the English language and thus have an ability to spot logical fallacies.  A good example of that is provided by Scalia in reference to this discrimination case:

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex.  The only issue is whether it prohibits it.  It doesn't.  Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant.  Nobody ever voted for that."
- Advertisement -

The above paragraph, based on the rules of evidence, would not be allowed to be presented as a legitimate argument in a court of law.  Notice that everything Scalia refers to in that paragraph is about what is NOT in the Constitution, not what is in it.

In a court of law, under the rules of forensic evidence, what is patently non-existent is not allowed as evidentiary or testimonial evidence.

Even those untrained in the law can readily understand that any written document is only about what is in it.  It cannot be about what is not in it.  But, Scalia goes right on, basing his ruling on what is law wholly on what is not in the Constitution.

What is not in the Constitution is literally infinite.  It includes everything that is not there.  Also, what is not in the Constitution is the same as what is not written there.

Scalia could just as well have been reading from a blank piece of paper when he made his ruling, quoting from what is not there.  Won't work, Mr. Scalia.  We know better than that.
- Advertisement -

Well, Mr. Scalia, according to your ruling that what is not in the Constitution is the basis of law, you must now send Ed Martin one million dollars.

That's also not in the Constitution.


Ed Martin is an ordinary person who is recovering from being badly over-educated. Born in the middle of the Great Depression, he is not affiliated with nor a member of any political, social or religious organization. He is especially interested in (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Conyers' year of tolerating contempt

You need to read this! Rob Kall's declaration of war

Removal of the President from Office

Textbook descriptions of George Bush reveal psychopathy, and much worse.

The worst is yet to come; foreclosure fraud is the banksters' least problem

The twelve powers of a President.


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
About idiocy of the Wal-Mart ruling!... by Molly Martin on Thursday, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:23:03 PM
condemn real sharia law around the world and when ... by jezreel liston on Monday, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:41:58 PM