“The federal judge in Detroit ruled in the historic case on Tuesday, ruling the law that prevents female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
So apparently it cannot be outlawed at all. Welcome to the new, diverse, multicultural America.
“Federal judge orders female genital mutilation charges dropped in Detroit,” WJBK, November 20, 2018:
DETROIT (WJBK) – A federal judge has dismissed six charges of female genital mutilation against a doctor, declaring the nation’s female genital mutilation law as unconstitutional.
The federal judge in Detroit ruled in the historic case on Tuesday, ruling the law that prevents female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that congress does not have the authority to make FGM illegal, which it had been classified as illegal under the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause.
The case involved Dr. Jumana Nagarwala who had been awaiting trial on female genital mutilation charges. She was arrested in the summer of 2017 and was released on a $4.5 million bond.
According to the opinion filed by Friedman, congress had banned FGM under a statute that states “whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Prosecutors said she did that with at least six girls at a clinic in the Detroit area, including two girls from Minnesota. The doctor denies that she committed a crime and says she performed a religious custom from her Muslim sect, the India-based Dawoodi Bohra.
The doctor, through her attorneys, argued that the law that the federal government had been using to charge her was passed through Congress without proper vetting.
Her attorneys argued that the act of FGM had no bearing on commerce, which judge Friedman agreed with in his opinion:
“That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercial or economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met.”…
Harold says
I hope the decision is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
mortimer says
If Judge Bernard Friedman does not wish to protect little girls from this obvious abuse, who will?
Judge Friedman has made little girls defenseless.
mortimer says
Note to Judge Friedman and lawyers: SHARIA LAW ALSO AUTHORIZES THE MURDER of one’s own CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN.
Is that OK with you as well?
Where will the American courts draw the line on the ABUSE OF WOMEN under DISCRIMINATORY SHARIA LAW?
Phil Copson says
To the destructive left-wing mind-set, everything that damages society is ok – (unless, of course, somebody tells them that whatever it is, is a RIGHT-WING concept, in which case it is immediately evil, unthinkable, unspeakable etc.)
If Donald Trump were to suggest that women were worthless and mutilating them to keep them faithful was a good idea, then the howls of rage and execration from the Left would ring out from now until Doomsday, but if some imported savage actually does it, they couldn’t care less.
BC says
Why cannot it be prosecuted under child abuse laws as it is naked and egregious abuse of a minor?
Operations which are not for medical necessity are also illegal (excepting plastic surgery of course)
Frank Anderson says
BC, many cases have the potential of being prosecuted both in state and federal courts, with one not preventing the other under the concept of ‘”dual sovereignty”. Also, many times state prosecutors want to avoid their cases because of local pressures, including budget issues, that are less of a problem in the offices of federal prosecutors. I think it could be a good idea to look at the Detroit jury pool, to see how much muslim presence could very easily prevent a fair trial of a criminal charge for conduct clearly encouraged under muslim teaching. If a unanimous verdict is required to convict, One devout muslim who makes it into the jury room for deliberations could prevent a conviction and waste hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in expenses. State prosecutors rarely if ever have plenty of money to spend on cases that are “hungry”. There are no easy answers to my knowledge.
Terry Gain says
Note to Mortimer
Your response is completely emotional rather than rational. The issue is whether Congress can criminalize FGM under the authority of the Commerce Clause. If you want to live in a country governed by the Constitution and the Rule of Law, you would support this decision and demand that the state of Michigan outlaw FGM.
You might benefit brim reading the comments of Sobieski and PRCS posted last evening.
PRCS says
TG,
Michigan did enact such legislation–in July 2017, I believe. Of course, that came after the charges were filed.
gravenimage says
Terry–with all respect–I think Mortimer’s questions need to be asked. If this judge is OK with mutilating children, what other appalling aspects of Shari’ah will he fine with?
And while it is good to be reasoned and measured in our response to Jihad and Shari’ah, a little righteous anger is such horrific cases is also not remiss,
Frank Anderson says
GI, those questions were not before the court and were not argued for either side. His opinion at this point would be wholly inappropriate as what is considered an “advisory opinion”. Reading the details of his Opinion which has the purpose of explaining his Decision, he has allowed other charges to continue prosecution in federal court while dismissing only one charge because HE THINKS and has so ruled it to be unconstitutional. He could be reversed on appeal or he could be upheld on appeal. But answering other questions before they have been properly raised and argued is really not proper.
I am afraid when an attempt is made to prosecute under state law that existed at the time the alleged crime was committed, or in future cases after the new law was enacted and effective, the law could be struck down as I have explained. As disgusting as this conduct is to me, and any person I would consider worthy, we just don’t know the outcome. Judges do not always rule correctly, nor do they always rule the way we think they should. That is what appeals are for.
gravenimage says
Frank Anderson wrote:
……………………….
BC, many cases have the potential of being prosecuted both in state and federal courts, with one not preventing the other under the concept of ‘”dual sovereignty”…
…………………..
Frank, I can certainly see this judge deciding that his jurisdiction is not the one to try this case, for whatever reason.
But what do you think of his saying that a law against mutilating children is *unconstitutional*? I would love to hear your legal opinion on this.
Frank Anderson says
GI one of the first cases studied in the first week of law school is Marbury v. Madison. That case is also the first case from the US Supreme Court establishing the authority of the Supreme Court to review actions of the other TWO branches of the federal government. From that case in the early early 1800’s (1803?) comes all subsequent authority for federal courts to examine whether any law or action is within the Constitution.
I HOPE the judge in this FGM case is in error. “Wrong” is a moral question, “Error” is a legal question. I hope if the US Attorney will and can get approval, an “interlocutory appeal” before the remaining charges are tried is requested from this judge to allow the question to go through the Circuit Court of Appeals and if necessary to the Supreme Court. I WISH the trial judge would be overruled and prosecution allowed to continue under the federal FGM statute. But we, and almost certainly everyone reading with us, know the proverb, “Wish in one hand. . .”
The point I think almost everyone is missing is that federal prosecution continues on charges that could put this (fill in the blanks) person in jail for decades. With that in mind, I am sure it makes Some difference; but How Much difference will it make that the charges which gave the convictions and sentences (hopefully consecutive and not concurrent) that locks her up do not specifically include FGM?
Every judge in every court federal and state has as his first duty to maintain order in the court. Right behind that is to know the Constitution and as much of the rulings that govern litigation in his court as possible, while always being ready to demand briefs from the parties on any issue where the judge has doubts or questions. Then the judge makes decisions which may or may not survive an appeal. Generally over 80 percent of trial court decisions are upheld on appeal. Courts in the United States exist to make decisions, with “justice” being a collateral wish to hope for.
The Common Law system, attributed to William the Conqueror, aka Bill the Bastard ca. 1066, came into being to end trials by combat that maimed or killed too many of his valued fighting men. While written law according to a previous conversation existed in England long before 1066, Bill added the concept of stare decisis to give a better and more stable application for more predictable and understandable results. It pleases me to think that those who got here “without the benefit of clergy” can do something absolutely great and distinguished that has lasted unchanged in basic concept for nearly 1,000 years and serves as a guide in many countries around the world.
Please remember that no conviction can survive appeal unless the defendant is afforded zealous and competent representation, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The lawyer who raised this Constitutional challenge was doing his job. If I had been representing the butcher I would have been duty bound to raise the issue. The judge who ruled did his, even if WE don’t like what he ruled and question the ruling. The prosecutor did his job in attempting to apply the law and including THIS charge with others. If it were mine to handle this butcher would be in the most miserable prison the Constitution would allow for as long as she lives, and maybe a few years more. Please steer me if I have missed anything.
gravenimage says
Frank Anderson wrote:
Carl, the judge is already “benched” for life.
………………
I know what you mean, Frank. I think Carl meant “benched” in the athletic, not the legal, sense.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I’m sure he did also. But if one wishes to be a lawyer and make legal arguments at least learn the terms and language. There is no telling how many people can be confused even more that they are already.
gravenimage says
Thanks for your reply, Frank. If the prosecutor did bring this case in the wrong court, I hope it can be re-filed in the proper jurisdiction.
Frank Anderson says
GI, a federal prosecutor brings cases in federal court. A state prosecutor brings cases in state court.
A federal prosecutor files charges for violation of federal law. A state prosecutor files charges for violation of state law.
The federal judge in this case ruled that the federal law that made criminal the act of the accused was in violation of the requirements of the US Constitution. As I explained, his proposition that state law may support a charge instead of federal law is speculative and in my opinion subject to doubt. If I were representing the defendant, I would pound Yoder into the record at every lawful opportunity.
Please continue to ask any questions until you understand clearly. I am happy to help.
gravenimage says
Frank, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
As I explained, his proposition that state law may support a charge instead of federal law is speculative and in my opinion subject to doubt.
…………………
Frank, is it then your opinion that mutilating children cannot be prosecuted under either federal or state law–that this abuse of children is, effectively, legal everywhere in the United States?
I am no attorney, certainly, but I do hope that this is not the case.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I am a retired attorney who has held licenses in 2 states. In my opinion based on the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, there is reason to doubt that a state law prohibiting FGM would be upheld. I am not saying and cannot say with any certainty either that the Supreme Court would be in favor, or opposed to the law. But I can say that if they “stand by the decision” of Yoder, I do not see enough legal difference for either Yoder to be overruled, or for Yoder to be distinguished and a state FGM law to be upheld.
There is a practical difference that could help a different outcome, that would uphold an FGM law: THREE women on the Supreme Court, usually on the “wrong” side of issues as I see them. They might cringe in horror, as I would for my family, with the thought of allowing FGM. Remember the wonderful Presbyterian teaching that ALL children are the responsibility of ALL adults (the entire congregation stands as God-parents when a child is baptized). Mother and father have the “rights” such as they are; but all the rest share the duties. I do not want any child of mine whether by biology or by choice, to be mutilated and denied the life that God intends. With 3 women on the Supreme Court, even if they are rabidly liberal, as these are, they could vote to uphold a law that they would recognize having a very direct and personal interest and understanding. That means only 2 of the remaining 6 men need to see a reason to either overturn or distinguish Yoder to uphold an FGM law. The deprivation of Yoder can be reversed by additional education. The deprivation of FGM is permanent and cannot be reversed.
PRCS says
How, GI, do you conclude that the judge is OK with mutilating children? He very clearly called it a crime.
Roy says
That’s the kind of judgement that is made when when idiot judges are appointed!!!!!
John varyan says
Amen to that.
PRCS says
Did you read his judgement, Roy?
gravenimage says
Frank Anderson wrote:
GI, I am a retired attorney who has held licenses in 2 states. In my opinion based on the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, there is reason to doubt that a state law prohibiting FGM would be upheld.
…………………………..
I realize that you are *far* more knowledgeable than I am when it comes to the law, Frank–but I am still disturbed that US would protect thugs mutilating their children.
What if the creed of Baal were revived? Would these parents be able to sacrifice their children?
I am not asking this to give you a hard time–it is a genuine question.
My belief was always that one had the right to practice one’s religion *until* it broke our civilized laws? Am I wrong? In that case, what if Muslims start demanding the right to murder Infidels? Their creed, after all, calls for this.
More:
I am not saying and cannot say with any certainty either that the Supreme Court would be in favor, or opposed to the law. But I can say that if they “stand by the decision” of Yoder, I do not see enough legal difference for either Yoder to be overruled, or for Yoder to be distinguished and a state FGM law to be upheld.
There is a practical difference that could help a different outcome, that would uphold an FGM law: THREE women on the Supreme Court, usually on the “wrong” side of issues as I see them. They might cringe in horror, as I would for my family, with the thought of allowing FGM.
…………………………
I am also disturbed that the only way we possibly end this mutilation of children would be for emotional women to–as this sees it–break Constitutional law.
I actually imagine that American men would be disturbed by mutilating girls, just as are women. And while I realize–needless to say–that the Constitution does not mention FGM–any more than it mentions murder–I find it difficult to believe that the original intent of the founders was to allow parents to mutilate their children, any more than they wanted the allowance of murder in the streets.
More:
Remember the wonderful Presbyterian teaching that ALL children are the responsibility of ALL adults (the entire congregation stands as God-parents when a child is baptized). Mother and father have the “rights” such as they are; but all the rest share the duties. I do not want any child of mine whether by biology or by choice, to be mutilated and denied the life that God intends. With 3 women on the Supreme Court, even if they are rabidly liberal, as these are, they could vote to uphold a law that they would recognize having a very direct and personal interest and understanding. That means only 2 of the remaining 6 men need to see a reason to either overturn or distinguish Yoder to uphold an FGM law. The deprivation of Yoder can be reversed by additional education. The deprivation of FGM is permanent and cannot be reversed.
…………………………
Again, I’m not sure that I see this just as a women’s issue, nor do I believe that women are inherently opposed to Constitutional law (the specific women on the Supreme Court being a separate issue, of course).
I cannot believe that there is no way to prevent Muslims mutilating children without flouting the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson famously said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I believe that mutilating children falls squarely into the category of being “injurious to others”. Am I wrong?
In these same papers–Notes on the State of Virginia–he also condemns some past excesses of religion, such as torture and burning “heretics” at the stake. Nowhere does he say this is fine so long as it is considered part of the faith.
This aside, Frank, I hope that you and yours are having a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Frank Anderson says
GI, thank you I am having a great Thanksgiving with my family by choice, including a brother by choice and his son whom I have not seen in a year. After lunch I took them to see a machine I have been working on and redesigning for 10 years that is working as I wished and looking like it will do what I want. I also feel like I am working on a single question bar exam for the past several days, which is good because it makes me think.
“YOU GOTTA KNOW” I have no sympathy for any form of child abuse. Like child rape, FGM leaves a devastating injury to a child for the rest of a lifetime, making any hope of a normal and peaceful life a really hard goal to obtain. I have worked with many clients and professionals with such issues.
I am not, not, impressed with being a licensed attorney. Retired status means that I am still licensed but not practicing because of health limitations. I should not take cases that I might not be able to complete. My opinions are always based on what I read, the cases I have researched and argued (some won, some lost) and what I THINK others Might do.
Wellington correctly observed the US Supreme Court did not allow ILLEGAL drug use as part of a religious practice exemption. So what happens when the drug becomes legal? Alcohol is legal now, and is regularly served following some religious services, and is either actually or symbolically served during others. I cannot imagine murder or human sacrifice becoming acceptable as a religious exemption (unless 5 muslims or collaborators are confirmed to the Court) because of the right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness appearing first in the Declaration of Independence, and certainly by any imaginable reasoning incorporated in the Constitution whether or not specifically mentioned. Some rights are included by words that non-lawyers do not connect with those rights..
So we see there are 2 extremes where The Court is highly likely to rule as I suggest. legal drug use-permitted, murder-prohibited. We also see under Yoder that what I have called (with 22 years of classroom education) malnutrition of the mind to be Constitutionally acceptable as a religious practice, while denial of modern life saving medical care to a child because of a parent’s religious affiliation and preference is not.
At the time I took my first bar exam (successful on the first try) I believe the review course instructor said there were 27 cases presented to the Supreme Court on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses about religious exemptions. JW’s won 25 of them and lost 2, those involving denial of accepted life saving medical care to children. So the instructor’s memory aid was, “Jehovah’s Witnesses win; Nixon loses,” because Nixon lost most or every case presented on his claims of executive privilege in the Supreme Court.
We should not go too far in worrying about the real possibility that FGM MIGHT be treated as a religious exemption and allowed. It is also possible, and I WISH, hopeful, that a unanimous court would hold differently. A number of times in the comments people want to go far beyond the issue decided in this district court by this district judge. This judge had a CASE in front of him. He ruled (decided) that case and nothing else. He had no other case or controversy presented and argued and therefore said nothing about what MIGHT be done if such an issue appeared in the future. The first section of Article III, which was omitted in the excerpt showing only the Supreme Court’s purview, states the requirement of courts to have cases and controversies, which are presented with real parties in interest, who have sufficient stake in the outcome to fight like Hell to the finish for their view, so that the courts will receive the best information and reasons to support a decision, and write a clear, complete and understandable opinion to support that decision for future cases.
As long as a criminal conspiracy to murder, enslave, mutilate, oppress, steal, conquer and destroy is seen as a religion this fight will continue. It cannot be both.
gravenimage says
PRCS wrote:
How, GI, do you conclude that the judge is OK with mutilating children? He very clearly called it a crime.
……………………..
Perhaps in some vague moral sense, PRCS–but if he is saying–as he appears to be–that any law against parents mutilating their children is unconstitutional, then he is actually saying that it is *not* a crime in the literal criminal sense–which is really what counts in our being able to stop it.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Frank. I *never* thought you had any sympathy with FGM, of course. Thanks for your views about its legality here.
I do think that Islam can both be a religion and evil. There have historically been evil religions before–the Aztec creed, for instance, with its human sacrifice, and the worship of Baal with its sacrifice of children.
Most religions are good–or at least benign–but not all have been.
That’s why I think that the practice of any faith should be allowed–up until the point where it harms others. I agree with Thomas Jefferson here.
And I did not realize that you are also a machinist or engineer. You are a multi-talented guy. What sort of machine is it?
Glad you are having a good Thanksgiving!
Frank Anderson says
GI, my first degree was in mechanical engineering, with an “official” minor in math which naturally followed the math requirements of engineering. I was 30 quarter hours short of a double major in electrical engineering when time and money ran out. My second degree of course is law. My third college trip ended when I was one course short of a non-degree accounting equivalence when in the last required course the professor started teaching flatly illegal requirements of the AICPA etc, regarding a totally false concept of accountant-client confidentiality. At that time I had written 2 research papers dealing directly with the subject. If I had written what was necessary to pass the tests, and the state bar got hold of my answers, I think I could be disbarred. I have worked too hard to earn and keep my licenses (2 states) to risk them for anything.
Then came Mutual Savings, Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia and Tyco, where accountants were sued and sent to jail by the bus loads. I have also been a radio station operator and announcer, movie projectionist, photographer, videographer, engineering aide, draftsman, gunsmith, plumber, carpenter, electrician, ditch digger, production worker, long-haul hazardous chemical truck driver, supervisor, customs brokerage clerk, and early apprentice level machinist who can make most things he can imagine, among other things. It takes adaptability to face the challenges I have and survive.
As long as fence-sitting is the choice of the day and a clear decision is dodged, islam will continue its conquest with all the violence it can commit in the effort. How much violence and oppression are you willing to accept before you say it is not a religion in truth, and is in truth a criminal conspiracy to kill or enslave. It cannot be both. As I suggested to Wellington, PLEASE watch, or watch again, the William Daniels movie 1776. Either we were a colony or a free nation then. Either we are under the slavery of “submission” NOW or we are FREE. There is no middle ground.
I always wish you, and the VAST majority of everyone who reads here the very best that life and freedom have to offer. After I have been legally dead for about 2 hours during surgery, every day, every breath is cause for giving thanks.
Frank Anderson says
GI, additional thought: The quote, “The Devil’s greatest success is convincing people that he does not exist,” OUGHT to make you think about an analog, “Islam’s greatest success is confusing infidels with the idea that allah is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus, and that it (islam) is a religion instead of a brutal, violent, oppressive criminal conspiracy.” Well-meaning and tolerant also means indecisive which is exactly what the pretend religion of death and slavery wishes that you do to make its conquest easier. Trying to promote a “reform” of a conspiracy that defines itself as “final, complete, perfect and unchangeable” is as futile and self-defeating as swimming upstream when far too close to Niagara Falls, or getting too close to the event horizon of a black hole. Islam, the falls and the black hole will win. And future generations will join 1400 years of generations in ignorance, oppression and death. Watch 1776 and THINK about the future. Do you want to be stuck for the rest of your life in a fight that never ends? Is that what you wish for the future of all generations. “They” clearly and certainly do.
PRCS says
But, Mortimer, is his legal decision sound?
And did the prosecution see this tactic coming?
Mark Swan says
Absolutely PRCS,
This surely seems suspicious —I suspect a fishy smell emanates from this whole trial–
starting with the very questionable law that was challenged here.
This is not the best our questionable law makers can do—they need to explain this.
We should never need special law to prevent violent child abuse.
This is not an Islamic Country— not nearly.
Sobieski says
You are looking at this the wrong way. So is Robert when he says, “So apparently it cannot be outlawed at all.”
It can be outlawed at the state level. The issue in this case is whether the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause give Congress authority.
I’ve read your posts before, and I know you’re careful than this, and that you respect the Constitution.
FGM is horrible. That’s obvious. But, whether Congress has authority is another issue.
I just wish the courts would be more consistent in applying this Commerce Claise interpretation.
PRCS says
Correct!
For all those who refer to that individual as a fool, and other pejoratives, here’s what he said in his ruling:
“That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercialor economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met. There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shownthat FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law. FGM is not part of a larger marketand it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permitCongress to regulate a crime of this nature.
He is NOT defending FGM.
Kilauea says
PRCS-Calling PGM a despicable practice and then allowing it is duplicitous bullshit. It clearly falls under the category of loss of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution, however that does not mean that those can be denied to children under the color of religious practice. Judge Friedman is 75 and has obviously gone to seed. He should be impeached and removed.
PRCS says
No, Kilauea.
He did NOT, NOT, NOT say it’s allowed.
Mark Swan says
PRCS—Did Not Say That—the prosecutor went with the wrong law—
That is what the judge rejected here—PRCS pointed out what the judge said
“As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault—
“FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law”—this was
a Federal Judge who was asked for remedy in this case under a specific
Federal law and He did not find it possible.
Hopefully this doctor will be prosecuted correctly soon enough and sentenced.
PRCS says
Thank you, Mark.
Lori says
Friedman is a sick bastard!!!! Let me guess, an Obama appointed judge. SICK!!!
PRCS says
How so?
Did you read his decision?
PRCS says
In no way, shape or form did he appear to be saying “that any law against parents mutilating their children is unconstitutional”
PRCS says
Nov 20, 2018 at 11:07 pm
What the judge actually said:
That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercial or economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met. There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law. FGM is not part of a larger marketand it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.
You could not have logically concluded that he “appears to believe that criminalizing the mutilation of children is unconstitutional” if you had read that read that (which has been posted in this thread several times).
His ruled that making FGM a crime under the COMMERCE CLAUSE is unconstitutional.
PRCS says
GI,
In no way, shape or form did he appear to be saying “that any law against parents mutilating their children is unconstitutional”
PRCS says
Nov 20, 2018 at 11:07 pm
What the judge actually said:
That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercial or economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met. There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law. FGM is not part of a larger marketand it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.
You could not have logically concluded that he “appears to believe that criminalizing the mutilation of children is unconstitutional” if you had read that (which has been posted in this thread several times).
He ruled that making FGM a crime under the COMMERCE CLAUSE is unconstitutional.
Rob says
Agreed!
John says
That’s right ! How would he like it if he couldn’t pee?
John says
This is America , not Timbucktue ! Get with the program idiot !
J D S says
If our government and judges such as this guy continue to pander to the supposedly religious acts, desires, and demands of Muslims and allow our laws to be circumvented (let’s say circumcised) then we might as well throw our constitution in the trash can and let’s become the barbaric nation that the whole of islam wants us to be and if our leaders don’t pass new laws and enforce laws already on the books addressing Islam, then we need to kick them out of office and find those who will honor its citizenry instead of continuing on a downward path of Islamic destruction S. GOD PLEASE SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!
Theno1skinsfan says
I am not a Muslim, but this was the correct decision. Under equal protection, if a male CAN be circumcised, a female can be.
marc says
nahh, comparing a bit of skin that barely changes the use of the organ, hand has proven health benefits, and protects women from cervical cancer (yes, wives of circumcised men have a far lower risk), it’s controversial at worst, with doctors split on risk/benefit. With mutilation and removal of an organ, FGM should never be called circumcision, it that has no health benefit, and comes with substantial risk is madness. Or do these women not deserve protection from this barbaric act. Maybe you should do some more research.
gravenimage says
+1
brenda deberry says
only if she is of age and chooses too. elsewise, I would think that this would fall under child abuse
DaveW says
I wonder what the reason was for the Muslims to be driven from Europe by the end of the 15th Century. Could it be because their ways are not European ways? That their beliefs do not meld with the beliefs of the west? That, for all their protestations, they are a barbaric population which supports Sharia Law everywhere, supports genital mutilation, supports “honor killings”, and so many more things which conflict with western traditions, laws, customs, ethics, and morals?
European nations which not so very long ago opened the floodgates are now in the process of reversing that decision. They are seriously considering revocation of citizenship, including birthright, and expulsions. They are reviewing their gun laws, especially in the Balkans and Black Sea region.
Lagitane says
Is it not already a state law that you cannot mutilate a person in any way? What if I were to chop off someone’s arm? That would be a felony. So, why is there debate about mutilating a female child’s genitals when we all know I would be arrested and charged if I chopped off her arm? Can someone weigh in on this?
Just a Concerned Citizen says
But what about the genitals of male children?
Raj says
Why no hide and cry to outlaw Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)?
Peggy says
You have a point.
Why is it ok to circumcise a male child? Isn’t this also altering his natural state?
Yes, there is no negative outcome as boys don’t have any problems and function normally afterwards but it is still altering their natural form.
So it looks like it’s ok to alter nature as long as it doesn’t cause problems afterwards.
Mark Swan says
While some well-meaning people consider male circumcision barbaric, medical science shows that circumcised little boys have a reduced risk of urinary infections, circumcised men have lower rates of cancer of the penis and women married to circumcised men have much lower rates of cervical cancer!
Female circumcision, however, actually removes part of a woman’s genitalia, rather than just skin tissue. Female circumcision is simply mutilation, and has nothing to do with health concerns.
Mark Swan says
Yes, I agree Geof, the foreskin of a penis after eight days old when the
blood begins to coagulate properly is no more intrusive than the umbilical
cord procedure and very quickly heals—what these monsters are doing is
butchering a functioning needed part of the female body for the most
warped reasoning. A very wrong and cruel behavior that should not
be happening anywhere.
Lagitane says
I agree with you that we should not mutilate male children via circumcision. But please do not attempt to equate obliterating COMPLETELY a female’s genitals with male circumcision. A man can still experience sexual pleasure after circumcision whereas a female’s sex life is totally destroyed by the procedure and she is also destroyed psychologically and spiritually as well. The fact that you would try to equate the two is outrageous and misogynistic. You would have an argument if people were lopping off men’s sex organs, but that is not the case.
Anjuli Pandavar says
I tend to see it this way too (I’m no legal expert).
It seems to me that FGM can already be dealt with under a range of assault crimes: assault, aggravated assault, grievous bodily harm and even sexual assault. If laws are made on an impulse to register an outrage, then due attention tends not to be paid to whether the basis of such law is actually sound. We can all feel we’ve “done something” because we made a really tough-sounding law.
I’m not familiar with the minutiae of this ruling, but most of the reactions here seem to imply that the judge is in favour of FGM. I very much doubt that’s the case. Far more likely, I think, is that the judge found the particular law to be unsound and ruled accordingly. That’s a judge’s job. All he’s saying, in his disinterested legal expert way, is come back when you’ve fixed this thing and I’ll take another look.
A part of me suspects a “virtue signalling” that came up against hard reality. Now a criminal lives to mutilate another day, another week, another year… and a thousand others can safely get in on what must be a pretty lucrative act, and civilised America takes another step into the pit of Islamic iniquity.
vlparker says
Or maybe the judge is a leftist with either sympathies toward islam or fear of islam.
The very fact that the Judiciary has veto power over all acts by the Executive and Legislative branches is the biggest mistake the Founders made. While this power is not granted to the Judiciary in the Constitution, nevertheless the Judiciary arrogated this power to itself a couple of hundred years ago and it has been a problem ever since. Jefferson was appalled by this power grab by the Judiciary, yet neither the Executive nor Legislative branches have ever seriously fought back and stood up for their co-equal status. Alexander Hamilton was oh so wrong when he wrote that the Judiciary would be the weakest branch of government.
It is time for the Legislative and Executive branches to ignore illegal orders from the courts and stop letting the courts usurp their power.
RonaldB says
Actually, if I’m not mistaken, the Constitution gives Congress the power to remove the jurisdiction of the court to review any piece of legislation. I personally believe the federal law does not have a Constitutional basis to criminalize FGM, but if Congress really wanted it to be handled on a federal, rather than a state, basis, if could attach a rider removing the law from judicial review.
Personally, with the divided Congress we now have, I doubt if they could pass a bill to send a birthday card to Santa Claus.
vlparker says
I just read the Constitution and I don’t see anything in it that gives Congress the power to remove jurisdiction of the court to review any piece of legislation. It does give Congress the power to create (and dismantle) all courts inferior to the Supreme Court and thus to control their territorial jurisdiction, but that’s all I can find on the subject, and it gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction on cases involving ambassadors, public ministers and any case where a State is one of the parties.
I do, however, see your point on the FGM matter. There really is nothing in the enumerated powers that would give the federal government jurisdiction in this matter, which means by the 10th amendment it is up to the states. That’s an unfortunate state of affairs and it would be nice if some legislator had the guts to propose a constitutional amendment to outlaw FGM. I doubt that anyone will.
PRCS says
RB,
Probably accurate.
RonaldB says
For vlparker:
Article III section 2
Easy to miss.
Credit Wellington for the citation.
Frank Anderson says
Ronald, the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the provision is directed ONLY to the United States Supreme Court and not to lower federal courts.
RonaldB says
For Frank Anderson
Apparently, the legal interpretation is that Congress has the right to strip the right of judicial review from any legislation. It doesn’t make sense to me that legislation would be subject to the ruling of any federal judge, but Congress could only strip the right of review from the Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping
The interpretation you’re pushing is that “legislation can be subject to any federal ruling, but cannot be finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Congress can eliminate the review by the Supreme Court, but not by any inferior court.” It makes no sense.
Frank Anderson says
Ronald, when I went to a private, non-state law school the total tuition for 3 years was about 10,000 dollars. The same law school and many others are charging currently over 50,000 dollars per year of a 3 year program. Add to that 3 years of rent, utilities, massive amounts for books, food and general living expenses, well in excess of 250,000 dollars is needed, not counting 3 years of lost earnings while in school. ONE of the things that must be learned early in law school to avoid being the 1 in 3 who do not survive the first year is that the law does not always make sense to someone who is not informed of the law. That is why people spend the time, money and go. Most are making a colossal mistake when they do. Very few lawyers are successful and most struggle to earn a subsistence living. A number fall to drugs, alcohol and failed health.
I had the honor of a student mentor when entering the first year who explained in a simple way just what I am describing. If you ask a non-lawyer what time is it; he will look at his watch and tell you what it is reading. If you ask a lawyer what time is it; he will answer it depends on what time zone you are addressing and whether it is daylight saving time or standard time. Once those predicate questions are answered he will look at his watch, or in my case, my cell phone, and give you the answer adjusted for the predicate questions. If the law were as simple as you expect, anyone could practice law without going to law school or doing anything other that claiming to be able to think. It just isn’t that simple. The various state bars would go out of business and the practice of law would be totally instead of partially chaotic, certainly a goal of totalitarians who want our society to collapse.
TheBuffster says
Lagitane, from what I gather from Robert Spencer’s post and the posts of Sobieski and PRCS above, the case was brought, inappropriately, to Federal Court under a law that was improperly passed by the US Congress under the Commerce Clause. But it is not part of the federal government’s authority to deal with this sort of crime – it falls under the state court’s jurisdiction. Excerpt from the judge’s ruling as poster by PRCS above:
” As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law.”
Looks like this case was prosecuted under the wrong law in the wrong jurisdiction.
PRCS says
+1.
What really frosts me (aside from all conclusion jumping by so many posting here): why did the prosecution proceed that way?
Mark Swan says
That is the question PRCS, I agree.
PRCS says
If those prosecutors, whose time was paid for by the taxpayers, lost the case due incompetence, well…..
But, who knows. Perhaps they have a strategy we’re not privy to.
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, please help me understand how the prosecutors lost the case when 2 of the 3 theories (charges) they filed continue to be in court. ONE was dismissed by the judge as unconstitutional. OTHERS were not dismissed. Now who is in error? If you review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure there is nothing limiting a party from pleading alternative theories in case one is not held by the court to be prosecutable. Does not the article we are discussing include that charges other than FGM continue?
Mark Swan says
Frank Anderson, Mr. Spencer’s Article above does not say that—but, the link
He supplied, in that article it does say—She still faces conspiracy to travel with
intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and obstruction charges. Others
in the case face obstruction charges.
I think what is clear here is that the charge of mutilation should still
be prosecuted—even if elsewhere in state court perhaps.
What this doctor is claiming to counter the mutilation charge is in her lawyers words
“The procedure my client does, the religious nick, is the foreskin on a girl, or the clitteral hood – the law did not prohibit that.”
Perhaps the federal law did not—but you will find no medical purpose for this and
it is still a mutilation—that is what needs to be addressed with this doctor, in court.
Frank Anderson says
M.S. please let me be quite clear. FGM is outrageous, repulsive, abusive and should be criminal in any United States court, federal or state. The FACT that I am bitterly opposed to it, does not mean that my analysis should ignore the issues I see as hindering a successful prosecution that would impose sentences sufficiently HARSH to make sure that potential future butchers think twice before “performing” their services. One sentence that I think would be appropriate, but totally contrary to the Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” is the complete surgical removal of ALL sex organs of anyone who performs FGM. Now that would make some people think twice! In the absence of that brutal choice, a good long prison sentence in the general population would be a viable and Constitutional alternative. Child molesters do not do well in prison because so many inmates were molested before they were imprisoned.
In order to prepare a case to present in court any competent lawyer must not only think about what he wants to say and the outcome he desires on behalf of his client, but also what the other side will say against his client; and then how to respond to the other side. The prosecutor in a criminal case or the plaintiff in a civil case goes both first and last in the trial, and in many motion hearings. because the plaintiff/prosecutor has the burden of proof. I seem to remember a trial where the defense went either 2 or 3 times meaning I had 3 or 4 times to destroy the defense while presenting my case. The defense usually gets the middle, plus the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutor/plaintiff’s witnesses as they are called. I think we agree, this despicable, so-called doctor needs to be jailed and prevented from practicing on any living creature ever again.
PRCS says
Dear Frank,
“a party from pleading alternative theories in case one is not held by the court to be prosecutable”
“But, who knows. Perhaps they have a strategy we’re not privy to”
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, I do not understand what you mean or what your question, if any may be. Please try again in American English with more or less complete sentences.
Angemon says
Why, oh why, is FGM legislated under the Commerce Clause?
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Angemon .
Karin Isbell says
I completely agree with Frank Andersen: This barbaric “doctor” ought to be punished either by removing her sexual organs or a lenghthy prison sentence, or both. Enough said.
Frank Anderson says
K.I., while not being mentioned with any frequency on JW, tens of millions of black African men were castrated, totally, by muslim slavers, without any “surgical” niceties. According to one estimate I have read here 80 percent bled to death from the cuts.
It is AMAZING that any black person would see anything in islam worthy of following.
While removal of all sex organs is barbaric, and certainly “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Constitution, it is entirely consistent with the evil taught and practiced by a criminal conspiracy pretending to be a religion called islam for 1400 years and counting. How many more?
Halal Bacon says
Friedman delivered a significant, but not fatal, blow to a novel criminal prosecution because the judge left intact conspiracy and obstruction charges that could send Nagarwala and three others to federal prison for decades.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2018/11/20/judge-dismisses-key-count-genital-mutilation-case/2066855002/
PRCS says
Yup.
Diane Harvey says
Guess the government didn’t cite, nor did the court read, Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
Frank Anderson says
D.H. I hate that case, which says that a farmer can’t plant certain crops for his own use because the planting takes away his requirement to purchase those crops on the interstate market (“The Affectation Doctrine”). This is one time in the more than 40 years since I studied that case in law school that I like it and think its reasoning should be applied. If the DOJ does not challenge this ruling a disaster of incredible proportions will follow as one after another barbaric practices become legal on the way to sharia.
As I write many times, find a prosecutor who will take it and an AG that will approve it.
Peggy says
Just a hypothetical but what if a Muslim decided that all women should be mutilated like this and just grabs one off the street and makes it happen?
Would that be illegal? I see no difference here to a child being forced to undergo this.
Unless this is fixed maybe a situation like this won’t be hypothetical.
Michael Copeland says
It has happened. A native Swedish woman was gang-raped by muslim men and afterwards genitally mutilated by them with scissors. They were imposing Sharia.
PRCS says
Do you know if they were captured, charged, etc.?
gravenimage says
thebigW, you and perhaps some other readers here may not be aware that it was Jihad Watch poster CGW who was instrumental in getting the appalling Dr. Hatem Elhagaly fired from the Mayo Clinic:
“Mayo Clinic fires doctor who said female genital mutilation is an “honor” for women”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/mayo-clinic-fires-doctor-who-said-female-genital-mutilation-is-an-honor-for-women
Longtime Jihad Watch reader CGW saw that report on Jihad Watch and sprang into action, contacting the Mayo Clinic, where Elhagaly was employed, and starting a petition…
DBM echo says
Furthermore, how can a parent or guardian give consent on behalf of a minor for a medical procedure that has no useful medical purpose?
Mark Swan says
Very good question DBM.
RonaldB says
I actually agree with this ruling. Under the original Constitution, the states had jurisdiction over the individual, and the federal government had very limited powers that had to be explicitly justified in clauses of the Constitution.
In other words, like abortion, FGM is a matter for the states and not the federal government to regulate. This is why the cockamamie justification on the commerce clause was used: the federal government actually has no such legitimate regulation over such matters.
Now, suppose you live in a state that does not allow FGM and you wish to take your (unfortunate) daughter to a state that did. I think it would be a legitimate use of the commerce clause to make it illegal to cross state lines for certain purposes.
The original concept of federalism was that the federal government could supersede state governments, but was strictly limited in the areas it could act.
mortimer says
Thanks for that explanation of the jurisdictional confusion between levels of government. How, then, should the law be worded to make it stick?
RonaldB says
It’s not the wording of the law. It’s the fact that the proper legislative body to make FGM illegal is the state legislature, rather than Congress. The article made it clear that this is a federal law. As desirable as that is, this is left to the province of the states.
I suppose an appropriate federal law would be “It is illegal to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining a FGM procedure in one state, when the state in which the defendant resides forbids such a procedure.”.
Wellington says
So, RolandB, the states must bow on abortion to Roe v. Wade but on the matter of FGM it is still a state issue? And why? Simply because we have not a Supreme Court ruling on this matter?
Noam Cherney says
I feel enlightened-thank you
RonaldB says
Hello Wellington,
I think by any rational path, the Roe vs Wade decision was not based on any real Constitutional basis. I did say above that I thought both abortion and FGM should be matters of state law, rather than federal law. In other words, the states should decide for themselves.
Of course, we are violently against FGM, but my contention is, we’re ultimately better off by adhering to the letter of the Constitution, and re-vitalizing the concept of states rights.
I think Judge Kavanaugh would vote to maintain, though not expand, the scope of Roe vs Wade, not because he considers the ruling to be correct, but because he stated he values stare decisis or legal precedence. But, distasteful as it is, I think since there is no legal precedence, the question of FGM should be left to the states.
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, RolandB. I think we’re pretty close here. First of all, Roe v. Wade was a terribly decided case, even many pro-choice lawyers have said as much. Abortion should be a state-by-state matter, as you indicated, though I think it important to point out the legal technicality that English Common Law, Roman Law, Judaic Law and other legal systems have never accorded full citizenship rights to a fetus. Here we have a true grey area of the law that may never be cleared up. Anyway, Roe v. Wade is almost certainly going to remain the law of the land forever but this doesn’t mean, as I know you know, that many restrictions can’t be placed on abortion and Roe narrowed somewhat to a considerable amount by certain states if they want to. I see much possible fluidity here.
By contrast, with a citizen, such as a little girl, the federal government arguably has the right to protect American citizens from harm, as do the states, and without violating the 10th Amendment. Article I, Section 8 with its holding the federal legislature to insure the general welfare of the populace via the necessary and proper clause in the same Section 8 arguably would allow the national legislature to pass a statute prohibiting FGM, the regulation of only interstate, not intrastate, commerce notwithstanding. And, as you mentioned, Congress has the authority to pass laws and remove review of those laws by the federal judiciary via Article III, Section 2. I envision a day when Islam has revealed itself to most, even the still clueless political elites, to be such a terrible menace to such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality under the law that Article III, Section 2 might have to be invoked by Congress in laws constraining a good bit of Islam—or even, though quite unlikely, eventually a new constitutional amendment making Islam the exception to the First Amendment.
I think we have no disagreement that Islam is like no other religion on earth and that it will use freedom to destroy freedom if only given the chance. It must not be given the chance and it will possibly take stretching the Constitution to new limits to insure that Islam does not succeed in destroying American liberty. Here’s a nightmare scenario for you: There comes a day when the majority of Americans are Muslim. That would mean the end of freedom in America. Surely.
Hope you and yours are doing well. Happy Thanksgiving.
warren raymond says
Strike me down with a feather.
This is so perverse it takes my breath away.
What did they do to that judge to get this ruling?
Lilith Wept says
It’s all part of the Stealth Jihad that Robert Spencer wrote about in his book by that name.
It’s called Civilization Jihad , and is the same as in the Explanatory Memorandum document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood, that was discovered in the HolyLand trials. It’s the slow gradual process of changing a non Islamic countrys laws, and culture so they are increasingly Islamic. And it depends on insiders, traitors, quislings, useful idiots” who support Islam and moslems against all attempts to stop,this Creeping Islamification….
Moslems also use Taqyyia, lies to try and convince America GE Americans thatgthey are poor religiously persecuted people, knowing that this is a huge part of the American psyche, that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. And the propensity of the American people to come to the aide of those they feel are the underdogs, those people being bullied by those more powerful. .
Moslems constantly lie aabout supposed cases of discrimination and persecution and invent false statists to “prove” they are the most discriminated against religion, the most persecuted, have more hate crimes committed against them, than any other group of people. …it’s propaganda, just like moslems re writing history to try and convince the westbthat Islam isn’t filled with hatred violence and killing and it was spread by the sword, people given a choice of “ convert or die” …by the way thats the Islamic freedom in religion and tolerance that moslems claim is part of Islam, that “choice” of convert to Islam or die…. Moslems consider that a choice. That all moslems converged this way did so “ willingingly” after all, they could choose to Die!
Islam is filled with lies…..
So many cases of hate crimes against mosques or moslems either are committed by moslems themselves , for personal reasons or to inflate those statistics, or there is not enough evidence for police to decide if a crime has be en committed or by whom.
Moslems know they can’t attack the US and conquer us, they are too weak and in most cases cowardly. So they use this tactic to take over America.
And mark my words, unless we figure out a way to stopmthis spreading of Islam , then America will become an Islamic country, not now, not in 10 years. But it will,happen. More and more moslems will become elected congressmen and senators, get elected to all sorts of positions of power and influence in all levels of our governments, state, ,coal and federal…and those moslems will force more and more changes, forcing us to become ire and more Islamic.
It’s not going to be sudden, in some ways it will be so gradual that people won’t realize what’s happening until it’s too late.
I am not a lawyer, or a politician, so I don’t know if there is a legal,way that already exist to stop this spread of Islam.
But I do know that the main reason that Islam is able to spread is that they have the protection of the First Ammendment. ….If we were to remove that protection,,then I Be,ieve Islam could,be stilled. It’s it’s status as a recognized religion that is its biggest and best weapon against America. So what if we declared Islam to not be a religion? Because it’s core doctrin, as expressed I Its 2 main texts ( Koran and Hadiths) is a threat to national security. ..Islam is a totalitarian theocracy , a political,ideology with religion . And it has as one of its main doctrine that commands all moslems to fight against all non moslems and kill them unless they give up and agree to convert to Islam.
And it commands all moslems to work to spread Islam so that every country innthe world is changed into an Islamic country. And Islam allows moslems to lie, , claim they aren’t moslems , swear false oaths of loyalty, moslems are permitted by Islam romdo or say virtually anything if it is “ spreading Islam” or “ fighting in the way of Allah”!, or to trick or fool a kufar!!
If Islam allows these lies and swearing of false oaths , we can’t trust anything any Moslem says!
These command s are to be obeyed by all Moslem, are a duty and obligation of all moslems .,so Moslems in the West that aren’t doing these things are by Mohammed’s definition, hypocrites and maybe not even moslems!
And how can we know if a a Moslem who,is not obeying the Koran and Hadiths , a so called “moderate moslem ” isn’t going to suddenly decide to start reading and following those commands in the Koran to “fight against the unbelievers where ever you find them”? To start following Mohammed’s example as he is told to ? Jokingly referred to as sudden jihadi syndrome?
We can’t..
But I believe if Islam is declared not to be a recognized religion because of its doctrine about constantly fighting against non moslems and doctrineabout Islam ek g superior and moslems constantly trying to make Islam dominate and its its inability to coexist peacefully and equally wirh other faiths, then when Islam doesn’t have that protection of the first amendment , Islam’s spread will,be crippled, if not stopped dead. It won’t have th law defending and supporting it at every turn.
I do be,ieve in freedom of religion, buy any religion that has the goals that Islam has, the destruction of our entire civilization and the supreme y of Islam ruling over all, then that religion is not a religion, but something dangerous and it shouldn’t be permitted to exist in the US.
tim gallagher says
Warren, that was exactly my reaction when I read this report.To describe the decision as “perverse” is the perfect description. I don’t get it. The USA has built a civilised western society and yet garbage as evil and primitive as FGM is to be allowed. What’s next? Honour killings will be OK and marrying off young girls. I can’t believe this decision. My reaction was also the same as yours, “well, strike me down with a feather”. I agree with the points you make, Lilith.. Islam is a clear danger to decent, civilised people everywhere. It is trying drag us all back into a barbarous way of life. As you say, it shouldn’t be permitted in the USA or in any other civilised nation.
Mohammad Freedman says
Because we muslims can do ANYTHING we want and you can’t do ANYTHING about it. We muslims are SPECIAL, and BETTER than you.
mortimer says
Most of ISLAM is already ILLEGAL, Freedman, like slavery, jihad, Islamic calls for genocide, jizzya, etc.
What’s one more thing. Eventually, Islam itself will be tried in court and found by a court to be a society that wishes to overturn the US constitution.
Ernie says
About being ” SPECIAL” and ” BETTER ” . There are certain schools for ” SPECIAL EDUCATION “, Mohammad . Those schools facilitate people who need ” SPECIAL CARE “. Usually the pupils of such schools are mentally and/or intellectually challenged . To boost moral , the staff of these institutions are encouraged to tell the pupils : ” you are SPECIAL , you are BETTER “. As I said , Mohammad , this is only said to boost moral , self-esteem ( and is an illusion/delusion ) . So , Mohammad , o.k. , I’ll play along with you : yes Mohammad , you are SPECIAL , VERY SPECIAL ……and Mohammad , you are BETTER , SO MUCH BETTER ……and Mohammad : You can do as you please , without consequence……… so , open the window , and feel the fresh air brushing your face………..it feels so good………now , Mohammad ….you can fly…..you can do what ever you want, remember ? Without any consequence , because you are ” SPECIAL”…….now, …spread your arms , you can fly ……, jump……
gravenimage says
Is “Mohammad Freedman” an actual Mohammedan or just a troll? While this is actually how Muslims think, this does not seem like the phrasing of typical Muslim supremacy–which I have seen a lot of at this point.
Walter Sieruk says
That Judge in Detroit who orders ordered charges to be dropped against that quack brutal butcher Muslim “doctor” who engages FGM is terrible. Is that Detroit judge on the pay under the table or what? If so or if not in enter case he for his court ruling is a disgrace the American law which is supposed to protect people from harm. That judge and his ruling was cruel ,unconscionable and despicable and likewise he and what he ordered in an affront to everything that is kind, good, decent and right.
Now this cruel, brutal and vicious Islamic tradition of female butchery which some Muslims so inappropriately call “female circumcision’ has spread like an infectious disease , or a plague , even to America This heinous Islamic custom of misogyny has been exposed in the book by Brigitte Gabriel which is entitled THEY MUST BE STOPPED. For on page 178 it reveals to the reader that “One of the most devastating practices to young girls of the Islamic world is female genital mutilation. Young girls have their clitoris removed without anesthesia…”
Indeed, they must be stopped!
Wellington says
American law is ordinarily rooted in common sense, humanitarianism, logic and justice—and with a capacity to fully acknowledge getting things wrong on occasion, the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) by Brown v. Board of Education (1954) serving as an example of a decent legal system’s ability to correct matters and aspire “to a more perfect union.” American jurisprudence also has lent itself to an ethical evolution of the Constitution itself—the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments serving as examples of such.
Not this time though. And once again is demonstrated how the horribly regressive and repressive excuse for a religion which is Islam will actually use a legal system, in this case the American legal system, to advance its horrible agenda, including the extinction of liberty and partially or wholly clitorises as well.
Islam is so clever and nefarious. This is why non-Muslims, including American judges, need to be quite knowledgeable about Islam. Just think for a moment what this ignorant federal judge in Michigan knows about Islam. Disturbing, no? Well, it should be.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Wellington–I appreciate your legal background here, and that you still find this disturbing.
Terry Karcich says
FGM wouldn’t be an issue if Muslim immigration had not been encouraged by pro-Islam Obama. The practice should be outlawed by every stAte as child abuse. To allow it because it is a religious ritual means that human sacrifice might have to be accepted, too. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and people who won’t embrace our basic cultural traditions should leave America and go somewhere else.
FYI says
He clearly needs to undergo a certain medical procedure himself.
Frontal Lobe Lobotomy.
maybe a muslim doctor would be ideal…
duh swami says
I’m going to start carrying a crucifixion kit…So I ca rescue crucified people wherever I find them…
Licensed Attorney says
As Diane and Frank have pointed out above, every first year law student is taught that since the New Deal under the Commerce Clause ( there is even a doctrine called the Dormant Commerce Clause) the Federal Government can basically find any excuse to regulate any practice. Was she paid to do it in American currency that she deposited in a bank? ( Think of why legal state Cannabis businesses have to work in cash). Did she buy the knife? Does her clinic use any item with any conceivable nexus to Interstate Commerce? Etc etc. This activist judge is using his “reasoning” as a fig leaf to allow this unconscionable practice, likely because he was afraid some Michigan Muslim would slash his throat
gravenimage says
Thank you.
somehistory says
The State of MI should prosecute this case under their child abuse laws. This is clearly child abuse and should be stopped. Child abuse laws are not “unconstitutional” and this “federal judge” wouldn’t be the one sitting on the bench in a State case.
This fool is an enabler of serious child abuse. His turn will come and he won’t like it. He will reap what he has sown. There is a Higher Judge…A Real Judge…Who will pass sentence on the pretend judge who has used his power to further the abuse of children…more than the hundred the pretend doctor has already abused.
Would he also find that a parent can hand over an infant to an old man to rape and call it “marriage”? That comes next for these poor little girls.
Older Canadian says
One giant step forward for mankind, ten steps back for femalekind.
Check our this old judges bio. It explains a lot. It appears his decision is more anti-female than pro-muslim or pro-sharia law.
The old law he based his decision upon needs to be updated, revised. In the 21st century females are considered to be people also. Females are no longer a commodity, or so I thought.
gravenimage says
I think a lot of men–civilized men, anyway–are also against FGM. Robert Spencer certainly is.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“Why, oh why, is FGM legislated under the Commerce Clause?”
Rather, why was prosecution brought under a federal law which is only justified under a regulation-of-interstate-commerce argument? Isn’t FGM illegal under Michigan law? Mutilation, even if not female and not genital, is presumably illegal in all states. Why did a state prosecutor not prosecute under Michigan law?
P. Douglas says
That “so called Judge” in totally INSANE! And must be removed at once, by Federal Marshals.
To perpetrate such a crime against any child is an abomination! And for this IDIOT to rule it legal is astonishing.
I’ve talked to school teachers about how little girls age 7 -12 start bleeding in school and have to be hospitalized. Many with massive infections. And some even die.
For “a judge” to allow or encourage this butchery is both putrid and hideous!
James Lincoln says
As of 20 November 2018, this is the printout regarding JUMANA FAKHRUDDIN NAGARWALA, MD from the Michigan Board of Medicine.
It appears, to my disbelief, that she still has an active license and there have been no complaints or disciplinary actions.
Verify a License or Registration
Name and Address
Name: JUMANA FAKHRUDDIN NAGARWALA
Address: Detroit, MI 48202
Profession and License/Registration Information
Profession: Medicine
Type: Medical Doctor
Permanent ID #
4301071795
Status
Active
Issue Date
06/19/2001
Expiration Date
01/31/2020
Complaints and Disciplinary Action
Open Formal Complaints: None
Disciplinary Action: None
Steve's nephew says
If God didn’t want females to enjoy sex, wouldn’t he have created women without a clitoris?
Fundamental premise: God does not make mistakes.
Sam says
I hope this goes to supreme court so a lot of people know about this. However, enemedia will not talk about it I guarantee.
jennifer says
another jerk judge laid down and was rolled over; perhaps he should spread it and have himself circumcised same way they do the children. that might open his blind eyes to islam problem
b.a. freeman says
un-F***ing-believable! “not commerce” would only be true if the parents of the victims paid her nothing, which i *seriously* doubt. furthermore, it is equivalent to cutting off the penis of a boy, since the tissue for both genders comes from the same embryonic tissues in the fetus. i’m not positive, but the innervation is probably very similar, if not identical. would this doctor be OK with that if a cult wanted to practice it? would he be OK with having a finger or two, or perhaps an arm, removed – even if for no charge?
OTOH, perhaps he did it because it “wasn’t commerce,” in which case it wouldn’t come under the commerce clause. as i intimated, since money almost certainly changed hands, that’s not likely, but even were it true, what kind of moron would fail to indicate to the prosecution that they should change the charges to avoid this kind of situation? i understand that a judge has restrictions on his actions, but certainly some kind of indication could be given to head off such a blatant mistake. and given that there does not appear to be any part of the story indicating that the judge said anything to the prosecution, even in the denial of charges, it looks as if we have an idiot judge submitting to sharia, or an idiot prosecutor who doesn’t know the law, or some combination of both.
infidel says
What kinds of people become judges in the USA???
Peggy says
The same that become judges in any western country. It’s the same all over western world today.
GreekEmpress says
WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS ON THIS RULING??
(Crickets?)
Wellington says
Why the feminists are very busy continuing in trash mode of Judeo-Christian, Western Civilization. It takes up virtually all of their time and, besides, feminists aplenty are only too ready to see the Islamic world as another victim of the traditionally nasty, imperial West which is improperly patriarchal while the Muslim world’s excessive dominance by the male (even in the afterlife no less) is “merely” just a cultural matter, as has been Islam’s imperialism which was not really imperialism at all but just a matter of “spreading,” both fit for sociological and anthropological investigation but certainly not in any kind of judgmental way.
Mark Swan says
Good One Wellington—
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone here.
gravenimage says
Yes, Mark–despite this grim ruling, I hope all Americans (and anyone else who may celebrate) have a very Happy Thanksgiving!
Grits says
Taxpayers in Michigan will now become financially responsible for the lifelong healthcare problems FGM will cause it’s victims. Urinary, gynecological and reproductive permant healthcare issues are a result of FGM. Medicaid dollars will be spent in lifelong efforts to treat these problems. It’s also possible that at a future point a lawsuit against the state of Michigan for endorsing and allowing this sexual mutilation of a child will be filed and defended at a great cost again to taxpayers.
James Lincoln says
Grits,
Interesting thought. Third-party insurance payers should start by suing the clinic / physician for reimbursement regarding downstream medical complications.
The FGM procedure was likely paid in cash to avoid preauthorization.
A complaint should also be filed with the Michigan Board of Medicine.
PRCS says
What the judge actually said:
“That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercial or economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met. There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law. FGM is not part of a larger marketand it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.
Peggy says
Mark Swan says
Nov 20, 2018 at 11:05 pm
While some well-meaning people consider male circumcision barbaric, medical science shows that circumcised little boys have a reduced risk of urinary infections, circumcised men have lower rates of cancer of the penis and women married to circumcised men have much lower rates of cervical cancer!
==============
Mark, that wasn’t my point.
My point was that the body we are born with is being altered in some way without the consent of the person. I am not arguing for or against male circumcision but just the fact that something is being done to alter nature.
I believe that once a person is an adult they can decide for themselves if something is going to benefit them and can consent to it so how come we allow others to decide on this for boys because of the time of this procedure being done the baby or child in question is not needing the procedure for any medical reason but purely for a religious one.
Mark Swan says
I pointed out male circumcising is, medically accepted, as beneficial,
therefore performed as commonly accepted procedure by many medical
experts, certainly not all, yet female circumcision is not commonly accepted
medical procedure and should not be compared in any way.
I do not know where you live, but in the U.S. as of 2010 (the most recent
information available), about 58 percent of baby boys in the United States
were circumcised in the hospital at birth. Now I do realize this procedure is
not as common nor even performed in many places outside the U.S.
I would not compare inoculation to this procedure, yet parents consent to this.
Do I think we should wait and allow the individual time to reach adulthood
and choose for themselves—I would hope this advice based on scientific facts—
if they ever get a consensus on provable benefits—one way or the other.
If a parent feels that this medical procedure is necessary or not, they
will still be the ones making this choice for their infants, either way.
Until further information is collected, this is where I stand on this.
carpediadem says
He must REALLY hate women.
Georg says
I’d assume he thinks killing apostates is just fine for Muslims as well. How progressive.
gravenimage says
Detroit: Judge orders FGM charges dropped against Muslim doctor, says law against it is unconstitutional
…………………..
Well, this is f*cking insane. I hope this ruling is challenged at a higher court–all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I am not disagreeing with you. I suggest arguments that need to be prepared for. Abortion was argued to be a state law issue until Roe made it a national issue. Abortion is the killing of an unborn person, certainly without obtaining that non-person’s consent. FGM is depriving a person who has not been considered capable of consent because of age of a lifetime of sexually normal activity. (Dodging too much detail while trying to present an understandable argument). I do not understand how one can be a national issue where the other cannot.
But then, I remember the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of limiting Amish children’s education in accordance with their teaching to Eighth Grade. In class, I argued that malnutrition of the mind is just as much neglect and abuse as malnutrition of the body. If the children do not have awareness of the alternatives for their lives, they are forced into a path in ignorance rather than free, informed choice. But the Supreme Court ruled against the state and in favor of the Amish.
There is no way to predict an outcome.
Peggy says
That is so sad and dangerous too.
The US is a country which has (or should have) one law for all people. What happened?
How can certain groups decide to have their own laws?
If this is allowed to happen then we don’t have a law abiding society any longer. Also it becomes a society which discriminates and that is against the law.
How on earth was that allowed to stand?
Frank Anderson says
Peggy, The Constitution, Freedom of Religion. As long as islam is treated as a religion instead of a criminal conspiracy to destroy and enslave the world, which I think it is, whatever it teaches and practices can be protected, sooner or later including honor and terror killings. I have described the legal elements of a criminal conspiracy a number of times, and am pretty sure many readers are tired of seeing my explanation. Please ask if you wish me to repeat my analysis.
The Yoder case was not that recent when I was in law school 40 years ago. It was in the Domestic Relations casebook. A good lawyer is trained to look at ALL sides of cases because he cannot be sure which side may want to hire him, and so that he can be prepared to deal with opposing arguments. I have never agreed with the case, for the reason previously stated (malnutrition of the mind is just as abusive as malnutrition of the body). But I can see where the case could be used to argue in favor of FGM as a religious practice to limit muslim sexual activity just as the limited education rule limits the intellectual activity of the Amish community.
I take absolutely no pleasure from this continuing outrage. This is unjust to allow people to make permanent decisions that change lives for their children. “Justice, Justice, shall you pursue.”
PRCS says
He said it’s a crime that could be prosecuted under state law, that it’s a despicable practice, and that it is NOT an Interstate Commerce issue.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the background, Frank. I had wondered previously how the Amish–whom I respect in other ways–were legally able to restrict their children’s education to 8th grade.
At least Amish can leave their faith if they so desire–and some do.
Even the few like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who leave Islam–what a brave woman!–still have to live with the horrifying consequences of FGM for their entire lives.
PRCS says
See my 11.07 PM post. Way too much conclusion jumping going on here, today.
Dave says
According to this ruling if one person violates the statute it not substantive so it’s allowed. If lots of people violate the law ori if one Dr cuts lots of girls then it would be substantive commerce and then illegal. So the Dr needs to harm more girls and then this judge will convict her. This is insane.
PRCS says
Negative, Dave.
He said it’s a crime that could be prosecuted under state law, that it’s a despicable practice, and that it is NOT an Interstate Commerce issue.
Did you miss the part about it being a despicable crime which could be prosecuted under state law?
Dave says
I read the part that said the Michagan law was created after the crime and was not applicable here. Some of the girls came from outside states, there had to be communications and money spent to get them to Detroit and that’s interstate commerce. My point is on substantive, how little commerce is not enough or put another way how many must be harmed before it becomes substansive commerce?
PRCS says
He referred–generically–to any state law, not just Michigan state law (as I read it).
Robert Carrillo says
Welcome to the imaginary lane of “The Law” in the United States of America now..
Robert says
and what now, for an example, with honor killings? If I am a Muslim male, may I now commit murders to protect my honor as decribed in the Quran? If female mutulation is my religious right protected in the US Constitution why not the protection of the honor of my family and me by murder?
“The federal judge in Detroit ruled in the historic case on Tuesday, ruling the law that prevents female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
So apparently it cannot be outlawed at all. Welcome to the new, diverse, multicultural America.
Jon Anderson says
This guy is just as much a savage as the person doing the cutting . Throw him off the bench ! This is America not Tim buck too
TERRA NOVA says
When do housetop writing about these CLUELESS POLITICIANS. Or the common people who are still asleep.
Politicians are NOT clueless any more, for years, they are cowards, but not clueless and people are not asleep any more, but cowards too.
They should have stopped it in the beginning. When it is all coming to an end, it will not be pretty, that is what my guess is.
NWO? ” And He wept over Jerusalem” And so do I.
Michael Copeland says
The judge said, “FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law”.
Can that still happen?
Frank Anderson says
M.C., my opinion always subject to correction. Jeopardy, as in Constitutional “double jeopardy” attaches when the jury is seated and the first witness is called. Until then no jeopardy has attached to prevent dismissing and re-filing a charge in that court, federal or state. Under dual sovereignty crimes under federal and state law can be charged and tried in both. One trial does not exclude or prevent the other.
Please read my comments regarding the impact I fear as a result of the Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder. It is entirely possible that the state law, if any, will be declared Unconstitutional for interfering with religious practice, just as Wisconsin’s state law regarding mandatory minimum education requirements. The implications of Yoder are devastating. As long as islam is regarded as a religion instead of a criminal conspiracy, this will happen frequently. I am sorry to see this happen to us.
PRCS says
One trial does not exclude or prevent the other.
I do hope it’s refiled and prosecuted under applicable state laws (if they’re already on the books).
Frank Anderson says
PRCS, I spent several years on a case representing the victim of a crook who stole money that he was entrusted to handle. The case involved both federal and state charges. The state prosecutor sandbagged trying to let the statute of limitations run so he would not have to spend the money. Finally, 2 months before the SOL ran a phone call to the state Attorney General got the charges filed. Filing charges in one jurisdiction (federal or state) does not automatically mean the charges are filed in the other. The only time a charge is re-filed is when it is filed in the same jurisdiction after being dismissed, and before legal jeopardy attaches. Otherwise both charges, federal and state, are filed for the first time regardless of the other jurisdiction’s proceedings.
The questions that we cannot answer at this time:
1. In spite of the federal judge’s opinion AND decision, does the State of Michigan have any law that prohibits and punishes FGM that will stand up to Constitutional challenge? The state prosecutor will face a high burden in light of the Wisconsin v. Yoder case.
2. Is there a prosecutor and a judge who are willing to present and hear the case in full compliance with all procedural rules?
3. Can a jury be empaneled that will rule according to human law in spite of the law of islam?
4. Does that state have the money and resources necessary to prosecute this case through all appeals, no doubt through the US Supreme Court? Remember the possibility that the state might have to pay for both sides, win or lose.
5. Is this important enough for the state to make the commitment?
PRCS says
does the State of Michigan have any law that prohibits and punishes FGM that will stand up to Constitutional challenge?
It does have such a statue now (passed several months after the arrests). Whether it can stand up to Constitutional challenge is–as you note–a question we cannot answer at this time.
Wellington says
Why not, Frank, as I already mentioned above, pass a federal statute prohibiting FGM throughout the US and invoke the general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8 as constitutional justification?
Also, religious practices are not absolutely protected as are religious beliefs. As examples, American Indians can’t take banned hallucinatory drugs and claim it is part of their native religion to do so just as Satanists can’t have a human sacrifice now and again.
Thoughts?
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, yes cases have held religious use of illegal drugs can be prohibited by a state. And murder as part of a religious practice is for the time being criminal. The mutilation we are discussing is enough “less” that I FEAR that the Supreme Court could go either way-that the action is severe enough to take away religious shielding, or to give religious shielding as in Yoder. Few women will die from FGM. All will suffer both physical and mental health harm the rest of their lives. But so do the children in Yoder who are given only a limited education that prevents their making an informed decision and fails to prepare them for living in a normal world except in their closed community. I don’t see enough of a difference between the 2 alleged religious practices to justify a different result.
Just as I expect many are impatient with my argument of “Constitutionally protected religion” versus “Criminal Conspiracy Pretending to be a Religion to obtain Protection by lies” the inability to make a decision one way or another exhausts and confuses me. Either islam is good and deserves Constitutional protection or it is bad and deserves to be halted. There is no middle ground. The “final, perfect, complete, unchangeable” teachings and 1400 years of murder, slavery and abuse are not going to be tolerant today any more than at any time in 1400 years. So, sitting on the fence with “BOTH” leaves me unimpressed.
Wellington says
Respectfully, Frank, I do think there is a “middle ground,” and that is a very widespread disclosure and acceptance of Islam as evil but still a religion for First Amendment purposes (ditto for Satanism). Rather like Nazism and Marxism being “secular” religions that are protected belief systems but with significant restrictions on actions these heinous systems and their warped followers want to engage in.
As for Amish children constitutionally protected to only finish 8th grade and no more, I don’t think this is a big deal. It’s one of those kind of allowances for a particular religion that does not harm the body politic in general or even those in question. After all, one could make a good case for the fact that Amish children in today’s educational environment, where lefties predominate (from kindergarten on up) and political correctness and multiculturalism reign, are actually BETTER OFF not proceeding through the public educational system up to and including high school.
Thanks for your reply. Any more you wish to make will be appreciated. Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving, even though higher education (now lower indoctrination for the most part), would have students believe (and many of these young skulls of mush do) that celebrating Thanksgiving is actually racist because of all the horrible things done to American Indians even though American Indians, both before 1492 and after 1492, did horrible things to each other. But then, in the Age of Nonsense in which we live, only Western Civilization can be excoriated and no other. In any case, and once again, Happy Thanksgiving.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, as long as one dithers in the delusion that a “safe” middle ground exists, there is no viable approach to stop Islam’s conquest of our society. I wish you would watch, for the first or even “many-th” time the movie 1776, where John Adams made his big fuss that middle grounds do not get the king off our backs. William Daniels was brilliant in performing the passion that was needed to get indecisive delegates to decide whether to bow or fight. Would you rather remain undecided while others make your decision for you? I don’t think EITHER of us would like the decision “they’ make for us.
A criminal conspiracy is an agreement, between 2 or more people (with NO upper limit on number), to use illegal means or to use LEGAL means for an ILLEGAL purpose (the conquest, murder and enslavement of the world), and ANY overt act by ANY member in furtherance of the goals of the conspiracy (daily murders among other attacks in the name of islam). Calling a criminal conspiracy a religion does not change the fact that law is being broken and should be prosecuted. United States v. Gary Greenough, 609 F.Supp 1090, 1093-94 (S.D. Ala. 1985). The answer “Both” is as delusional as any delusion of reprieve observed by Viktor Frankl in the death camps. Man’s Search for Meaning.
I wish you and anyone you hold dear well Thanksgiving and every other day.
Wellington says
I’m not dithering, Frank. I “merely” think it is NOT a matter of Islam being good or bad. A religion can be bad but still protected by the First Amendment (e.g., Satanism).
All I want is accurate exposure of Islam, not prohibition—as with Satanism—or secular evils like Marxism or Nazism. The problem is not the good or bad stuff because a lot of bad “stuff” in belief form is protected by the First Amendment (Hell, even NAMBLA is).
Accuracy is the key here and not whether Islam (or any belief system) is good or bad.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, PLEASE watch 1776 and see what you sound like. It is the kind of denial that was being practiced in the Continental Congress until John Adams got things started. You might see some insight by paying attention to the New York delegation. There would be no United States of America today if indecision prevailed then. There WILL BE NO United States of America in the future if indecision prevails now. I am not John Adams; but I am “obnoxious and disliked”. Please watch the movie soon.
Frank
Mike says
From a constitutional point of view, I actually agree with the ruling.
It’s the individual states that should be banning this barbarity.
Now, all that’s needed is to apply the same logic to multiple OTHER federal intrusions, and I’d find it entirely appropriate. But here’s the thing: “regulating commerce” seems to expand and contract in weird ways, that are totally inconsistent, by a politicised judiciary.
So the real problem isn’t that this legislation is constitutional – it’s not. The real problem is that the “judiciary” is inconsistent in applying these definitions.
Federal intrusion into education is a perfect example of something that is clearly EQUALLY IF NOT MORE unconstitutional, yet never seems to get struck down…
PRCS says
Fully agree.
And how is that the prosecution didn’t “get” that?
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
This is what it means to live with muslims, the gradual dissolution of our human rights and laws. Muslims are going to chip away at our morals like an evil Michaelangelo on a block of stone.
It seems the charge didn’t stick because the crime was beyond the purview of the law the doctor was charged with breaking. Just goes to show how unprepared our federal government is in dealing with the barbarities of islam, thanks in part to Obama and politicians like him. Islam is a grave threat to the good people of our nation but we still have millions calling islam a “religion of peace” and squawking about how nice most muslims are. These traitors can’t see beyond their own circle of concern or self-absorbed noses: As long as their son or daughter hasn’t been raped by a horny muslim then muslims aren’t a threat; as long as one of their loved ones hasn’t been killed in a terrorist attack then islam means peace to them; as long as they haven’t been driven from their home by a bigoted muslim horde then multiculturalism with islam is a good idea. I don’t know if these people are really just that dumb or they simply don’t care about others, but clearly they are on the wrong side of human decency and morality. I only hope that with further education all Americans wake up to the threat of islam and take bold action against it. That’s why educators like Robert Spencer are such an asset to humanity, because he brings light into islam’s world of darkness so people can see the ugly truth about islam. And if we don’t listen and take measures to stop it then more girls will be mutilated for islamic barbarity, more innocents will die for demon allah, and more freedoms will be lost to the slavery of sharia. Eventually we will cease to be a free nation, instead we’ll be living a theocratic nightmare where islam’s religious bigotry and intolerance dominates every aspect of our lives. That’s always the price folks pay when they try to compromise for islam, they open the door to the worst kind of evil and the consequences it always, ALWAYS , brings.
PRCS says
The judge made clear that it’s a despicable practice and a crime that could be prosecuted under state law.
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
True, but why did the prosecution let this slam-dunk case slip through their hands with a questionable law? Is it because we aren’t equipped to deal with islam’s cunning infiltration and corruption of our laws and morals? This is a case of blatant criminality against children but instead of prison time we’re looking basically at a “not guilty.” Maybe we need a rewrite of 18 U.S. code 116, cuz clearly this ain’t the way things are supposed to go regarding barbaric religious cruelty against little girls.
PRCS says
AAP,
“but why did the prosecution let this slam-dunk case slip through their hands with a questionable law?”
The BIG question!
And yes, that “religious” practice is a case of blatant criminality against children.
IanB says
Of course American liberal feminists are up in arms about this and out in their thousands demonstrating on the streets.
No?
… @@@.. @@@@@ …@@@@@@@ … (tumbleweed).
Endlesspath says
This is the mental illness that is prevalent amongst the progressive/liberal/democrat mindset. Here in Ky, we had a recent ruling that established that panhandling is a protected 1st amendment right!
Anyway, if I recall properly the Mormon Church practiced polygamy to the point the U.S. govt basically went to a short-lived war with the Mormon Church to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
This ruling specifically found (and established as precedent) that “Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878),[1] That religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment. (There is info available online providing additional details, that are specific to religion/1st amendment/this case, please look it up).
This ruling will hopefully be appealed, as it will be overturned on appeal based on previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
PRCS says
“That religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.”
Correct!
And, per the judge’s ruling, it’s a despicable practice, and a crime that could be prosecuted under state law.
He was ruling on the constitutionality of the law vis-à-vis Interstate Commerce.
gerard says
In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), the surpreme court held that a farmer growing (ONLY ONE FARMER!!!!) a crop for his own farm’s use had an impact on intestate commerce.
The crop never left the farm.
In the case recently decided, people from states traveled to Michigan (spending money on interstate commerce) and paid money to the doctors for the services rendered.
How can anyone reconcile these two cases?
Terry Gain says
Peggy says
Nov 20, 2018 at 9:54 pm
You have a point.
Why is it ok to circumcise a male child? Isn’t this also altering his natural state?
Yes, there is no negative outcome as boys don’t have any problems and function normally afterwards but it is still altering their natural form.
So it looks like it’s ok to alter nature as long as it doesn’t cause problems afterwards.
———-
Your comment is bloody nonsense. Male circumcision is made for hygienic reasons. It reduces the chances of foreskin tearing and the accumulation of smegma and reduces the risk of cervical cancer. And male circumcision does not in any way affect sexual pleasure or performance.
Peggy says
I’m afraid not many would agree with you.
In cultures where males don’t get circumcised you would find all sorts of problems if what you say is true.
The only thing I am saying is that regardless of sexual feelings or not altering a natural state of anyone should be discouraged unless there is a medial reason for it.
Religion should not come into it at all.
Forcing something on a child is really child abuse unless there is a medical reason for it no matter if you agree with it or not because we all have our own opinions.
These days doctor’s don’t recommend it. They will do it but they don’t recommend it.
I just think that altering anyone’s body no matter by how much should be that person’s choice when they are old enough to make it.
What would you say to someone who wishes it wasn’t done to them? Suck it up?
Leonard J. Marino, MD, FAAP, LVT says
It is incongruous to permit or even promote male or female genital mutilation; enlightened individuals cannot claim one is barbarous and the other a disease preventer. AIDS is not caused by the presence of a foreskin, rather where the shaft is introduced. I am a retired pediatrician with many years of practice experience Circumcision is not a procedure that should be routinely performed.Articles citing the increased frequency of urinary tract infections (UTI) in uncircumcised males have revived interest in a procedure that is otherwise medically difficult to justify. If circumcision is recommended to prevent an easily treatable infection, how much more indicated is clitoral hood removal in females (FGN)? After all, females suffer UTIs six to ten times more than males, and the area in question is far more difficult to cleanse. If circumcision is necessary for cleanliness, why are most circumcisions only partial procedures in which half to three fourths of the foreskin is removed, allowing smegma to accumulate under the remaining prepuce?
In my private pediatric practice (middle to upper middle class), I used to see about 150 patients a week. For a one month period one year, I saw twenty two male patients with a genitourinary complaint, twenty of whom were circumcised. In ten of the circumcised patients, the foreskin remnant adhered to the glans, covering the sulcus so that when released, varying amounts of smegma appeared. Two could not be released and needed surgery to separate the foreskin adhesions.
Five of the twenty circumcised patients had meatitis (inflammation of the opening at the penile tip) and urinary frequency, which cleared after treatment with oral sulfa. Two males urinated with difficulty, one of them having two streams, the other three! One of these patients had surgery to re-open the passageway (meatotomy) three times; the other it done once.
It is of interest that meatitis requiring surgery, (because of the attendant meatal stenosis), is almost exclusively an illness of the circumcised. In a twenty five year period, none of my uncircumcised patients needed a meatotomy, compared to an average of three per year in the circumcised group. At the time, a report of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision said there was no evidence that meatitis led to meatal or urethral stenosis. It seems to me that the relationship between the two is difficult to deny.
It had been my custom for many (15) years to do a routine urinalysis in infants at two months of age. Rarely was any abnormality found. In those fifteen years I admitted only three infants to a hospital with an illness related to the urinary tract: two girls with hydronephrosis, and a circumcised male with a (UTI) urinary tract infection.
Since one fourth of my male infant patients were not circumcised, and the frequency of UTIs in the uncircumcised was supposedly as high as it was said to be, I should have seen many UTIs in male infants. If I was missing the diagnosis, they somehow were getting better without treatment. My experience reinforced the practice of discouraging routine male circumcision, a cause of more morbidity than benefit. There is no benefit to circumcising females or males. Simple cleanliness will suffice.
Terry Gain says
I opted for circumcision at age 27 because I kept ripping my foreskin during sex. The only difference is that is much easier to keep myself clean. I disagree with you and think it is odious for you to suggest that there is no difference between a procedure done for sound health and hygienic reasons and one done for vile cultural reasons.
gravenimage says
Thank you for that, Terry. I also have a friend who had to be circumcised in his late teens because his foreskin was tight. Except for more scarring than if he had had it done when he younger, he said that he suffered no loss of feeling at all–something he had been worried about before the surgery.
gravenimage says
Whatever one’s views on male circumcision, there is no removal of the glans–a circumcised male has full sexual feeling.
Cutting out a girl’s entire clitoris–as is done with even the mildest for of FGM, FGM I–is in no way comparable.
Mark Swan says
Thank you gravenimage—that really is the point here, isn’t it.
gravenimage says
True, Mark.
And Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Mark Swan says
Thank you graven image, I wish the same for you and yours.
Harald Martin says
The sensational headline does a disservice to the Judge. While I in no way support FGM, you
can’t use a law that doesn’t apply. The grave error committed was by the PROSECUTOR who
should have charged whatever felony assault statute that would apply, something like Mayhem,
which includes the removal of body parts would have been correct, along with probably another
dozen state statutes. Conviction would have been a no-brainer.
The doctor’s medical license should be revoked in addition to spending a minium of 20 years
in prison.
PRCS says
“The grave error committed was by the PROSECUTOR”
That does APPEAR to be the case.
But…..
Badger says
Detroit isn’t even Circuit 9. This is a seriously bad decision. Can it be appealed? And how did the accused get a $4.5 million bail bond?
PRCS says
In your opinion, Badger, how is it a bad decision?
UNCLE VLADDI says
So, just because a “religious leader” (in this case, Muhammad himself) approved of a certain kind of crime (aw, heck – we here all know he approved of and indulged him self in ALL of them) therefore the First Amendment not only forbids secular lawmakers from challenging the religious leaders’ opinions concerning same, but it also forbids them from criminalizing any and all crimes of which religious leaders approve in general?
I knew that forgetting to put in an actual definition of what, exactly, constituted a valid “religion” that your Constitution then purports to protect from your own government, would come back to bite you Americans on the ass!
Nona says
This is hurting HUman Beings? What happened to Human Rights? Women’s Rights? And is this not Child abuse?
Don’t these trump religions?!!!
Rey Ybarra says
That judge needs to be strung up by his nuts!!!!
Indiana Tom says
Sharia law in the USA.
PRCS says
For all those who didn’t bother to read the judge’s decision, and for the morons who’ve referred to him as a fool, a man who supports fgm and must REALLY hate women, and other uninformed, stupid comments, here’s what he actually said:
“That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercialor economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met. There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law. FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.
Spiro says
Show me in the constitution where FGM is covered as being legal or even mentioned
This self loving judge is trying to creat law and that’s not his job
To follow his logic honor killing is fine as long as your Moslem and you only follow sharia law but we don’t in civilized countries
Is the judge Moslem if so would do this to his female family members
PRCS says
See:
PRCS says
Nov 22, 2018 at 10:34 am
Craig says
What American in their right mind says that this type of medical procedure is ok to preform on females. Apparently this liberal judge thinks so. This is horribly wrong in so many ways. He said that Congress did not have the power to approve a law banning FGM. Well, in that line of thinking they did not have the power to approve Gay marriage. So, is Gay marriage illegal?
PRCS says
The judge did NOT say that “medical” procedure is ok to perform.
“That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercialor economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met. There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law. FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.
Craig Murphy says
What everybody misses is that this is about federalism. The judge did not say that FGM cannot be criminalized or is protected by the First Amendment. He is essentially saying this is for the states to regulate or criminalize, not the United States Congress. Thus, the State of Michigan can put these mutilators away for decades. Don’t get in an uproar.
PRCS says
Not everybody, Craig.
Not everybody.
See my numerous posts citing his decision above.
Rob says
This judge should be thrown off the bench! The barbarism by these demons called Islam, is despicable and should never have a chance to grow legs in America! It’s absurd, how this so called judge is allowed to remain a decision maker! These Islamic murderers are lower than animals, and anyone associated with them, should be condemned!
PRCS says
Well, Rob, the judge clearly stated that FGM is a despicable practice, that it’s a crime, and that it could be prosecuted under state law.
So, why should he be “thrown off the bench”?
Rob says
Islam is a demonic cult, and anyone associated with them Obama, Kerry, Brennan, Farrakhan, Ellison, whomever, are condoning murder, rape, child molestation, barbarism, and should be thrown out of America!
Isis member walking by a pregnant woman, stopped her, cut the baby out of her womb, raped the infant, then her, and left them for dead, the baby died, but the mother lived to tell her story!
No human being should condone this Islam parasitic behavior! It’s mind boggling that a POTUS, fraudulently elected, and members of Congress condone hideousness! These animals are rabid, and should be exterminated! The minds of the people condoning this behavior, have been turned over, to reprobate minds! Lois Farrakhan is a cancer, and should be wiped out!
All you obama supporters should be imprisoned for life, and a day! These sick human beings knowingly supporting Islam must be condemned! Rob
Prabh says
It is time for serious DharmYudh.
Prabh108