Muslim judge rules against costumed atheist attacked by Muslim

Welcome to Wilford's America. You have freedom but if you if exercise that freedom you should expect to be assaulted.

 

Mathloom syndrome.

 

He should've recused himself from life.

 

What's shameful is that apparently there is a judge who agrees with them.

 

not enough info

Given the limited facts have been presented in both articles, and the culled snippets of the record, the judge seems to have acted out of line. Shame on him. Presuming that the judge was biased in his ruling, does this mean anything. Is he just one bad apple? If so, should he be gotten rid of for one mistake? Has he made any others? If we end the inquiry where the article ends it, then this is a human interest story. It could be cat stuck in tree saved by caped elderly man, or underdog little league champs come from behind win, or even woman murdered by U.S. citizen in satanic ritual. It is just media popcorn for gluttonous American consumers.

Does the problem go further? If the problem goes further, what, if any, policy prescription that would solve the problem? Should we ban all Muslim judges from trying cases involving Muslims? Maybe we should ban all religious judges from trying cases involving religion related fact-patterns. Or maybe, we could amend state constitutions to say that judges cannot impose Sharia law, that might fix it. Or perhaps we should just make a whole bunch of bright-line rules ultimately limiting any judicial discretion - just codify every possible permutation of events into law? Maybe something a little less drastic, like additional continuing education for judges.

Maybe the media will use this single case this as a launching point to seriously talk about bias in our judiciary against all manner of people like immigrants, criminals, the disabled, and non-corporate interests. Sadly, I think the only introspective follow up pieces will limit their questions to the incisive question of "is this Sharia Law?" I heard such hard-hitting journalism gets a lot of page-hits. I think the real story here is how content-light dreck get passed for journalism in this country.

 

Why should the judge have recused himself? Because he was a Muslim? Are female judges supposed to recuse themselves from rape cases? Should Christians recuse themselves from church bombing cases?

Who knew that this Muslim judge would be against enforcing the law?

 

So should all judges who have a religious affiliation recuse themselves from cases where their religion is involved?

If a Christian kills an abortion doctor, should the only judges that are allowed to rule on it be Jewish, Muslim or Atheist judges?

 

That's crazy. If a person can't apply the rule of law to their fellow Christians/Jews/Muslims then they shouldn't be a judge.

 

Recuse themselves from cases based simply on a shared religion? I've never heard of this. I've never heard of a Christian judge recusing himself from cases involving Christians, or Muslim judges with Muslims, etc.

 

What exactly happened between the two and what are the legal elements ofnthis "harassment" claim? Seems that there are some disputes as to what the guy did and the judge said he didn't quite believe that there could have been a big fight without witnesses and nearby police intervening. It is one thing if the guy beat another man up for the costume, it is quite another if he simply confronted the guy with limited physical contact and told him that it was offensive.

 

I don't think anyone is complaining that the charges were dismissed per say, rather the rationale for said dismissal.

 

I thought the rationale was that the guy did not carry the burden of proof as to then legal elements.

The other stuff was just extra.

 

Even though it's only Feb, I'm predicting that you are going to win The Most r****ded Post of 2012 award. Congratulations.

 

He specifically said he was "way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights".

That's wrong. Period.

 

Something else, if you can't tolerate someone mocking your religious faith, or anything else you feel strongly about, then the last place you need to be living is in America.

 

Was he saying that First Amendment doesn't protect you from being confronted by another person?

 

After all, mocking whatever we don't believe in is the American way.