As usual, WND is distorting the ruling and the meaining. The ruling can be found here:
This is a summary judgment ruling. It says the case goes to trial because there are TWO sides to the issue.
The ruling specifically says that someone who owns a cow and sells the milk can drink the milk directly from the cow if they wish, as can their family.
However, the state is arguing that the arrangement made is a sham, designed to allow the sale of raw milk to the public. The ruling does not agree with that description, but says it needs to go to court to see if it is true or not.
How dare you confuse this eruption of outrage with actual facts!
I was going to post the same thing, but luckily I read all the posts and realize you were already doing so.
As you say, WND seems to do this a LOT.
Actually the court DID say that the rights of the plaintiffs to own their cow, enter into a contract to board a cow, etc., all of which the plaintiffs claimed to be “fundamental” rights — the term “fundamental” being a key term — are not in fact fundamental rights.
Therefore, in determining the constitutionality of the laws of Wisconsin regulating milk production that the plaintiffs are challenging, the courts will apply a “minimal scrutiny” standard of review.
You could make very similar arguments the plaintiffs are making here about running a marijuana farm or coca field — or even a meth lab — that they have a fundamental right to “grow their own”.
This decision, at least up to the point where the Judge ruled on the question of fundamental rights, which is where I stopped, is NOT activist at all. It is pretty much “turn the crank” legal reasoning.
This precaution saves me a lot of embarrassment. I have to work a little harder to sound stupid.
Thank you for the link. I’ll have to hold reading it until this evening, but I do appreciate the info.
Thank you for finding that. I’m always suspicious of paraphrases these days.
BFL. I need to read this ruling. The judge sounds like a lunatic.