Skip to comments.Slavery protections for animals? Judge to decide (Do animals have constitutional protection?)
Posted on 02/07/2012 12:05:11 PM PST by SeekAndFind
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. The judge raised doubts a court can allow animals to be plaintiffs in a lawsuit, and he questioned how far the implications of a favorable ruling could reach, pointing out the military's use of dolphins and scientists' experiments on whales in the wild.
Kerr acknowledged PETA faces an uphill battle but he said he was hopeful after Monday's hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
It’s really only a matter of time before people will be legally marrying animals in the USA.
Do animals have constitutional protection?
Only the species that signed the constitution.
Free Willy! Then tax him.
Democrats must add to the voter rolls any way they can.
Animals can have rights when they get responsibilities!
Mkes me wonder why we even bother with a republican form of government. All that voting and bother and expense is surely not justified. We should just have a binding forum of judges deciding everything in life.
We are slaves to our government. Animals have it better.
I can see class action lawsuits from Golden Retrievers for bringing home all the tennis balls they chase.
At this rate it is only a matter of time.
When the critters pay taxes then we can considered extending them rights.
The same should be said for the illegal migrants.
Does this mean that my dinner can sue me?
By mocking it they hope to undermine it. Others can then carry forward further phases of the destruction process.
This government is not going to be happy until it has enslaved us all.
Take all the leftists and ship them to Californication and build a wall around the state (except for the southern border.) Then wait for The Big One to make Las Vegas a beach property.
Peta is SUCH a whacko outfit...they should all be fed dog and cat food forever, and made to crawl on their hands and knees, if they love animals so much. Idiocy.
Even my soul groans for the perfidity of the PETA Heads. (Like Chia Pet Heads only with grass for hair.)
Yea it’s only the unborn babies who have no protection or rights.
If they do, then we need to file lawsuits in all 50 states and all ten federal court jurisdictions to get Roe overturned. On the basis if animals have these rights, the human unborn have to as well.
I love my animals and I’ll die protecting them, that’s my choice. They are more to me than property. But the very fact they are my property allows ME to take care of them and be responsible for them, and that they have certain rights that I am to take care of them and feed and water and shelter them and get them medical care when needed. Without anyone else being able to take them from me. I consider them non-human family members, not all people do. But I can protect them because anyone who’ll go after them will be going after me and I can legally defend myself or my other family/friends around me.
Animals are best cared for when they belong to someone. They live far longer and generally better lives than in the wild. THe wild animal shows show you what ‘life in the wild’ is like. It is scary and tense and brutal and without mercy.
Finally if animals can sue (via proxy groups) regarding things that will affect their lives negatively, and maybe kill some of them, then unborn human people have to have this right as well. Otherwise you are legally placing them lower than animals. This is perhaps the best argument to run with. Argue the unborn should have at least the same legal protection that the animals do against those that may propose things that hurt or kill them.
Lawyers are the Scum of the earth, and they become judges.
How Platonic of you.
How Platonic of you.
Hey, I like you too.
“...said PETA’s attorney Jeffrey Kerr, representing the five orcas. “
In Our World, unborn babies have fewer rights than orcas.
Bob Barker has been funneling money hand over fist to law schools across the country to establish the study of animal rights. Don’t take this lightly, these people are dead serious. And they are after power, not helping little puppies and kitties.
You have correctly identified the agenda. It is no accident that we have recently heard a crescendo of criticism of the Constitution. The Constitution and our guns are the only things standing in the way of a leftist dictatorship.
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.