Such is the case with the slowly-developing constitutional crisis in which judges, not the people, decide what is put in our state constitutions.
That's not the republic you grew up in.
It's happened in places such as California, where voters in 2008 approved an amendment to their constitution, Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A judge there singlehandedly overturned it, thwarting the votes of millions.
Now, in Oklahoma, voters Nov. 2 overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting that state's courts from relying on Islamic Sharia law in any of their rulings. Some 70 percent of Oklahomans voted for it. But there, too, a judge -- U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange -- has blunted the amendment, entering a temporary restraining order against it.
The ruling is only temporary, certainly, pending a Nov. 22 hearing. But the fact that a sitting U.S. district judge would even issue a temporary restraining order against the people of Oklahoma is frightening and outrageous.
Constitutions are contracts among people. If they are not free to write those compacts, how can they truly be free?
In the Oklahoma case, a Muslim is arguing that the amendment violates his family's ability to carry out his will.
So, American jurisprudence must cater to the whims of an individual -- and the law must bend to individual cases, rather than cases being judged according to the law.
Moreover, what this man seeks is for religious law to be acceded to by the state. Pardon us for wondering, but doesn't that establish a state religion just a hair more than, say, having a Christmas display?
And what if it were a Christian who was demanding that state law conform to Christian dogma? How long do you suppose Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange would entertain that proposal?
"Sharia law allows for stoning and spousal abuse," reminds commentator Dana Perino.
It's amazing that an American judge with an ounce of brains would seriously consider the brazen proposition that our laws should ever yield to baldly religious doctrines. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
And for a judge to usurp the will of the people in writing their own constitutions is flagrantly arrogant and alarming.
This gullible judge is just one more cloudburst feeding a gathering flood of tyranny.