There's an interesting debate going on in the U.S. now over one state's attempt to protect America's sovereign laws from the influence of other countries and religions. But more interest, perhaps, is the question of how we ended up at such a debate. The fact of the matter is that Sharia law should have already been banned in the United States to begin with.
I can't blame Oklahoma voters for wanting to take action. After one New Jersey judge's decision opened the door for activist judges to apply the Qaran-based law to decide cases, people were/are obviously concerned. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this shouldn't have happened in the first place -- likewise, the ruling was later overturned.
So while Oklahoma voters were right to be concerned, perhaps they overstepped by singling out Sharia specifically as an example -- the issue in this case isn't over the merits (or lack thereof) of Sharia or Islam. Rather, it's unacceptable to apply any religious "laws" in deciding domestic court cases. After all, we don't allow convicted murderers to use an Old Testament "eye for an eye" defense and so-called Muslim "honor killings" are prosecuted as capital murders -- as they should be.
We prosecute criminals based on the American rule of law and the real public outcry should be over activist judges failing to do their jobs in this respect.
CAIR is suing in part because they claim the new law would prohibit some Muslim families from fully executing their deceased family members' wills which are sometimes based in Sharia law. This argument is completely moot -- it doesn't matter what religion you practice. If your final wishes might violate U.S. laws, your family should be prohibited from executing them. Further, the new law would prohibit state lawmakers from legislating for Oklahomans as a whole using Sharia; it does not in any way infringe on private individuals' rights to freely exercising their religion.
In not recognizing these facts and subsequently giving credence to CAIR's bogus argument against the ballot referendum, I have to question the judgment of Clinton-appointed federal district Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange.