Perhaps there were inconsistencies. But that doesn’t excuse Martin from considering what amounts to a Sharia defense, lecturing Perce about the sensitive nature of Muslims, or explaining that what he did could get him executed in some Muslim nations. The Constitution is precisely what separates us from from such nations, and Judge Martin’s ignorance of, or indifference towards, that document is shocking.
It is worth remembering that when Oklahoma voters passed a ban on Sharia law by 70 percent margin, liberals were furious, and both the ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a suit to block it from being implemented. In a decision best described as ironic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the ruling of the lower court blocking that law, contending that such an amendment to Oklahoma’s state constitution “violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
State Representative Rex Duncan, who crafted the amendment, apparently had an idea of where judges like Mark Martin would take this nation. “I see [the consideration of Sharia Law in a courtroom] in the future somewhere in America. It’s not an imminent threat in Oklahoma yet, but it’s a storm on the horizon in other states,” he contended.
A storm has arisen in Pennsylvania, where a judge can be removed from the bench only by: (a) a judicial board presenting its case to the court of judicial discipline, which can impose sanctions ranging from a reprimand to removal from office; or (b) impeachment proceedings initiated by the state house of representatives, followed by a conviction by two-thirds of the senate. Martin himself remains unrepentant, noting that if “someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth.”
In other words, you can either believe the judge — or your own lying ears.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2