Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Swiss voters are, in fact, sane
All is right in the world again: Swiss voters reject a "right to counsel" for animals. Chortling derisively, perhaps, that the question got on the ballot in Switzerland? Laugh it up, furball. The head of Barack Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has argued, in writing no less, that animals ought to having standing in U.S. courts to bring lawsuits.
Yes, the left are different from us. And, apparently, the Swiss.
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Mar 09, 10:45:00 AM:
Common decency asks us to tread lightly when the left is hit with such a crushing blow.
M.E.
By , at
Tue Mar 09, 12:47:00 PM:
Sure, "animals should be permitted to bring suit..." assuming they can make their arguments known, or be made to understand them. I know my dog knows to sit when I say sit, but I don't know that I could explain the intricacies of a lawsuit sufficiently for him to understand it. Failing that, I might suggest any lawyer representing him would be engaging in something akin to presumption.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Wed Mar 10, 12:36:00 AM:
Don't be too sure about the Swiss. They talked about giving legal rights to *plants* in 2008.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp?pg=1
By Don Cox, at
Wed Mar 10, 11:49:00 AM:
"assuming they can make their arguments known, or be made to understand them. "
I'm not sure that argument holds. Small children, or Alzheimer's sufferers, can be legally represented.
It is clear (at least to me) that this proposal is silly; but it is not so easy to find a solid argument against it.
What is the legal status of a cat or dog when a rich widow leaves it her fortune? No doubt different in various countries.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Mar 10, 09:20:00 PM:
Could I get dinged with a Habeus Corpus action if I swallow my bacon and eggs?
