Then no need for lawyers, cool.
i’m just saying courts words in rukings are precise and specific, when they say something a certain way, they mean it the way they wrote it.
the prior guy said the court said this makes animals equal to humans. that’s not true because they actually didn’t say that, they said that those animals - the domestic ones referred to per this case - were afforded certain rights of protection that humans have. that is not giving them 100%equal status under the law in every way people are. if that is what the court intended to do it would have stated it exactly that way.
you can’t stop libtards interpreting thigns the way they want. they find abortion rights under a non-existant right to privacy that’s written nowhere in the constitution. that doesn’t change what the court wrote in its verdict.