Posted on 10/21/2004 3:02:48 AM PDT by notkerry
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right.
Missed Tech Tuesday? The season's hottest new games, cool arcade classics, and handhelds you've got to have.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right.
"If Congress and the President intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue they could and should have said so plainly," Judge William A. Fletcher wrote in an 18-page opinion for the panel.
The lawsuit was brought against Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf The Cetacean Community -- defined as the world's whales, porpoises and dolphins -- by their self-appointed lawyer, marine mammal activist Lanny Sinkin.
Sinkin claimed in the lawsuit that the U.S. Navy had violated the Endangered Species Act with its use of long range, low frequency sonar that can cause tissue damage and other injuries to marine mammals.
Sinkin could not be reached for comment on the 9th Circuit's decision, which upheld a lower court ruling.
There's some cats around my house that must be kept from seeing a Jacoby & Meyers commercial, that's for certain!
Apparently the whales and dolphins need to hire better sharks.
Lawyers seek rights for great apes
March 19, 2000 Seattle, Washington
"Steve Ann Chambers, president of the Animal Defense Fund, stated that animal law is the next legal frontier; it stands where environmental law did 25 years ago. Many law schools now teach animal law, and there are many lawyers currently practicing some form of animal law. While the more radical activists groups receive most of the press, the lawyers have been working behind the scenes to enhance animal protection. The lawyers have chosen to start their movement with four apes, the chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobos and orangutans, because they are genetically very similar to humans and therefore probably have the best chance of winning in court. Increasingly legal experts (whether they support the cause or not) are saying a case is inevitable."
http://www.wminteractive.org/Articles/wa3-19.htm
If it takes 18 pages to explain why whales don't have the right to sue, I have very little hope for the future of this country. I know it's the ninth circuit, but this can't be for real.
I have to believe deer hunters will soon be charged with murder.
I ain't seen Bush out on a raft spearing whales lately. But we have a bunch, MukLuks or whatever, out on the Olympic peninsula that did it not too long ago.
LOL!
rofl
I suppose since I'm not vegetable or mineral, you're including me.
My hound has more common sense than many folks I've met.
This has been going around since the 80s, when a law review article appeared called, "Do Trees have Standing?"
Beware of anything that starts with this phrase.
Everyone talks about animal rights, but nobody talks about animal responsibilities.
Liberals are hysterical or would be if not in positions to do so much harm. I bet this bunch also advocates vegetable rights.
I'm surprised that the 9th Circuit figured this out.
Elizabeth Edwards and Ricky Williams tried to sue Bush??
Frankly, this type of language is disturbing from a major court. Grants are not granted by the government. They are recognized.
The reason why the "right of animals to sue" is not recognized is because it does not exist. Creatures without sentient thought are incapable of bringing up a lawsuit. The fact that the court even considered this case is a sign of the dumbing down of this country.
Then again, this IS the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This country will be better off when the whole lot of them are off the bench.
Well, I'm sure glad that the taypayer's money is being put to such good use. This is a landmark decision and it was well worth the time, effort, and finances of the the US Government to defend themselves from the marine animals. Just imagine, if they were granted standing, this could open the door to all kinds of claims against the United States (does a dolphin born in the Monterey Bay have a right to citizenship? [Who would Flipper vote for???] Are elderly animals who are legal residents of the United States eligable for Social Security Benfits?).
The 9th Circus Court has definately earned it's salaries for this major decision. I feel safer knowing they are on the job . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.