So in reality there is no law specifically denying consideration of Sharia but by default the only law that is supposed to be considered is Federal, State or Municipal statues, correct? And if some judge somewhere decides to abide by some element of Sharia contrary to Federal/State/Municipal in a ruling there is a mechanism by which that ruling eventually would be invalidated, as has already occured, correct?

Judges will from time to time consider foreign sources of law when interpreting a situation that has no clear answer in our statutes, regulations, or case law. I have never heard of a judge referring to Sharia in that way, but I suppose it could happen. The judge's oath of office, however, requires him or her to determine what the applicable state or federal law is and to follow that law. If a judge rules a certain way because Sharia compels it, then we hope that there is an appellate court to reverse that decision.Like I said, we hope that there are appellate courts willing and able to correct such a thing, but that mechanism is not perfect. The main line of defense against the problem Newt has imagined is the fidelity of the judges to their oaths of office.

Maybe Newt doesn't have the same high opinion of "the fidelity of the judges to their oaths of office"! Maybe Newt thinks that rather than allowing judges that latitude to rule incorrectly and forcing the public to rely on the willingness and hope of other appellate judges to find fault and reverse, a law that prohibits consideration of Sharia and prevents the fault from occurring is more efficacious and poses not threat to the present order of law.

You surely don't claim that everyone who appears before a "rogue(thanks!)" judge has the means or the wherewithal to mount effective appeals do you?

Wouldn't such a law simply statutorily prevent judges who abide by their fidelity to their oaths to office from straying into versions of law without Constitutional basis?

Is there a reason other than "we don’t need it"? If there was such a law what would be its negative consequence?

I don’t know if you are aware of the NJ judge whose ruling was overturned on appeal is the poster boy for the no Sharia in our courts cause. I can’t find a fairly factual report on the original case or the appellate ruling at the moment, but there are a million opinions about it!

When the public see’s and hears of cases like that and cases where Muslim taxi drivers are discriminating based on their religious principles without consequence, combined with the seemingly obtrusive and even belligerent Muslim expansion in area’s across the country, as has been the case throughout much of western Europe, no one should be surprised that perceptions play out as politics.

A rouge judge? Do we have another spelling disagreement here? To answer your question, no, I would not make that claim and it's even worse than that. Sometimes appeals are unavailable no matter how much money the litigants have.For one thing, we will need judges to enforce Newt's new law, so what would he accomplish? For another, I think it's a solution searching for a problem. It's not as if we have judges applying Sharia law all over the place. There was one judge, in New Jersey I think, who seemed to do it, but he got reversed on appeal.Who knows what unintended consequences such an unnecessary law might have once creative lawyers get hold of it.That's the one. I typed the previous part of the comment before I got to this. That judge seemed to have a major brain freeze, although I don't know the details.That's true, but Newt should know better, IMHO.