“THIS CAUSE came before the court, on Defendant’s February 23, 2011 ore tenus motion for a written Order memorializing the oral interlocutory order announced by the Court during the evidentiary hearing that began on January 10, 2011.” This is the sort of sentence that makes me weep for the future of Western civilization. It also reminds me of the headaches I used to get in Algebra class. Who is ore, and why is he tenus? Wasn’t he vaccinated with all the other kids? And as long as we’re memorializing an oral interlocutory, might we also memorialize the Constitution as a basis for American law.
From the same pen that wrought the painfully indecipherable (to non-lawyers) coagulated mess above, in the very same court order, we read a plain directive that, “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” And, oh yes, in his final thunderbolt from Mt. Olympus, Circuit Judge Richard A. Nielson announces that, “The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter.”
To this layman, this is positively jaw-dropping. A Florida district court judge has ordered that a case proceed according to Islamic Law? My respect for our court system has been hanging by a thread for some time, but this is surprising even to me. Perhaps the fine legal minds on Ricochet can decode the particulars, but it does seem to underscore the validity of those who are concerned with a creeping Islamification on our own shores.
Join Ricochet to be part of the smartest and most civil conversation on the web.
- Engage in great conversations on just about any topic on our exclusive Member Feed.
- Write your own posts and let the world know what you think.
- Interact with our contributors as well as fellow members.
- Have your voice heard by opinion-makers and political insiders.
- Attend our legendary Ricochet member meet-ups that take place all across the country and around the world.