Thursday, October 21, 2004
not so much fame as shame:
i seem to have consistently misspeled whales in this post, quoted at crescat.
oh well, only a few hundred thousand people read crescat. or not.
i do not tend to run a spellchecker on my blogs, and one might not have caught "wales" anyway. the aardvark wails.
cetacean community:
http://www.crescatsententia.org/archives/2004_10_21.html#004592
9th circuit screws up a standing case.
granted the case is a little fishy:
some lawyer sued on behalf of wales.
venue in hawai'i is proper.
the court has jurisdiction at least to determine its jurisdiction.
the court says that under article III the wales could have standing if the statute provides for it.
the statute gives standing to "persons" and "individuals."
Wales have persons and are persons. Individual wales make up the cetacian community.
Cetacian-American community?
The court is simply indulging in dredd scott style bigotry.
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
As an aardvark, i'm offended.
This is not tounge in cheek, some may insist on thinking so.
I was surprised the statute was written that way, but as written, the whales have standing.
Majors v Abell, (IN 2003) was, largely, about when is a person a person.
Here, the whales are people, or at least persons. As an aardvark i'm personally offended by the court's specieism.
I agree with will of course that there are issues of how the lawyer established representation.
i seem to have consistently misspeled whales in this post, quoted at crescat.
oh well, only a few hundred thousand people read crescat. or not.
i do not tend to run a spellchecker on my blogs, and one might not have caught "wales" anyway. the aardvark wails.
cetacean community:
http://www.crescatsententia.org/archives/2004_10_21.html#004592
9th circuit screws up a standing case.
granted the case is a little fishy:
some lawyer sued on behalf of wales.
venue in hawai'i is proper.
the court has jurisdiction at least to determine its jurisdiction.
the court says that under article III the wales could have standing if the statute provides for it.
the statute gives standing to "persons" and "individuals."
Wales have persons and are persons. Individual wales make up the cetacian community.
Cetacian-American community?
The court is simply indulging in dredd scott style bigotry.
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
As an aardvark, i'm offended.
This is not tounge in cheek, some may insist on thinking so.
I was surprised the statute was written that way, but as written, the whales have standing.
Majors v Abell, (IN 2003) was, largely, about when is a person a person.
Here, the whales are people, or at least persons. As an aardvark i'm personally offended by the court's specieism.
I agree with will of course that there are issues of how the lawyer established representation.
Comments:
Post a Comment
