From the Sacramento Bee:
A federal judge for the first time in U.S. history heard arguments Monday in a case that could determine whether animals enjoy the same constitutional protection against slavery as human beings.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller called the hearing in San Diego after Sea World asked the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that names five orcas as plaintiffs in the case.
PETA claims the captured killer whales are treated like slaves for being forced to live in tanks and perform daily at its parks in San Diego and Orlando, Fla.
“This case is on the next frontier of civil rights,” said PETA’s attorney Jeffrey Kerr, representing the five orcas.
Sea World’s attorney Theodore Shaw called the lawsuit a waste of the court’s time and resources. He said it defies common sense and goes against 125 years of case law applied to the Constitution’s 13th amendment that prohibits slavery between humans.
“With all due respect, the court does not have the authority to even consider this question,” Shaw said, adding later: “Neither orcas nor any other animal were included in the ‘We the people’ … when the Constitution was adopted.”
Miller listened to both sides for an hour before announcing that he would take the case under advisement and issue his ruling at a later date.
Suffice it to say that this should also be the last “time in U.S. history” that a judge indulges such nonsense. But, hey, it’s California. The rest here.
If whales are declared to be people, can legal human-whale marriages be far behind?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnly if limited to the magic number two. I support human-whale unions, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that two humans and one whale or . . . . blecch, just forget it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut only if you and your whale are a same-sex couple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid the orcas authorize PETA's lawyer to represent them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf PETA loses, will the whales be able to sue them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWould it be better if California just went it's own way? It's irredeemable at this point, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Miller listened to both sides for an hour before announcing that he would take the case under advisement and issue his ruling at a later date."
Admittedly, I'm not a lawyer and this very well may be the way all cases are heard, I just don't know - BUT, if any case SCREAMS for a ruling from the bench, isn't it this one?
If a Judge can't slap this idiot down and then lay the mother of all fines on him for wasting the Court's time as well as refer him to the state Bar for disciplinary actions, then maybe our legal system is beyond salvation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeyond that, this whole petition should have been denied long before it got to a court hearing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're talking about California here. The land that logic and reason forgot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis case should have been dismissed 30 seconds after it was filed for a variety of reasons, but political correctness - particularly in California - trumps common sense, intelligence and the law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNext up:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVoting rights for trained seals.
Oh...wait a minute...
More tax dollars we don't have thrown down the liberal sink hole that is California.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe probably made time to hear it. It's a novel argument. Of course the motion to dismiss will be granted, but what's wrong with sitting there for one hour listening to people argue the point. It's part of the democratic process. Besides, once he issues an order, courts will be well within their discretion to levy sanctions for any future complaints.
Judges "waste" their time with equally far-fetched complaints all the time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy oh why are humans so concerned with non-humans? Leave them alone!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse