Slavery protections for animals? Judge to decide (Do animals have constitutional protection?)

Sacramento Bee ^ | 02/07/2012 | Julie Watson

[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.

[brownsfan]

It’s really only a matter of time before people will be legally marrying animals in the USA.

[UCANSEE2]

Do animals have constitutional protection?

Only the species that signed the constitution.

[Flycatcher]

In a sane world, this judge would be tarred and feathered, thrown into the trunk, and sent across the border.

Any border.

[gundog]

Free Willy! Then tax him.

[Albion Wilde]

Free Willy! Then tax him.

Democrats must add to the voter rolls any way they can.

[cartoonistx]

Animals can have rights when they get responsibilities!

[Rinnwald]

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.

[mountainlion]

We are slaves to our government. Animals have it better.

[Joe 6-pack]

WOOOF!

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

[COBOL2Java]

Do animals have constitutional protection?

But of course! Unborn babies, on the other hand...

[Road Warrior ‘04]

The courts will decided if animals have constitutional rights, but won't touch the rights, or denial of rights, of the voters when intimidated by the Black Panthers?

[afraidfortherepublic]

I can see class action lawsuits from Golden Retrievers for bringing home all the tennis balls they chase.

[ColdOne]

At this rate it is only a matter of time.

[BuffaloJack]

When the critters pay taxes then we can considered extending them rights.
The same should be said for the illegal migrants.

[liberalh8ter]

PETA needs to be fined eleventy billion dollars for bringing forth this frivolous lawsuit. Who's to say the orcas aren't loving life at Sea World?

[PUGACHEV]

Once animals get their constitutional rights, I see no reason why they shouldn't vote. In fact, the aphids in my rose garden alone would allow me to swing the presidential election any way I wanted, if I could only get them all registered, and if they would vote as I asked them to.

[Political Junkie Too]

Free Willy!

Fry Willy!

Does this mean that my dinner can sue me?

-PJ

[Joe 6-pack]

I'z here for my reparashuns!

[Steely Tom]

PETA is doing this simply to make a mockery of the legal system and the Constitution, in just the same way that the homosexual community is using "gay marriage" to make a mockery of marriage and the family.

By mocking it they hope to undermine it. Others can then carry forward further phases of the destruction process.