The Left Is Beyond Parody

[makattak]

Or, no, that's not the Onion:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/21/401219719/n-y-judge-grants-legal-rights-to-2-research-chimps

We're granting legal rights to animals.

A judge gave animals standing to bring cases in court. (Of course, somehow I'm betting that Bonzo didn't file the papers himself...)

I'm... well, no, I can't say I'm shocked. I don't think the left can shock my anymore as I expect nothing but unreason from them.

[vaskidmark]

I'm curious to figure out how NhRP gained standing to file anything on behalf of anybody/anything.

Guardian?  Conservator?  Power of Attorney?  Next friend?  Those are all legal constructs that allow one person to act on behalf of another - especially an other that lacks the capacity (legal, not necessarily mental) to act on their/its own.

Without standing the case seems to be one of "I want something you have.  Give it to me."  So far the only cases like that which seem to "work" are te ones filed by Al Sharpton et al. which are settled just to avoid the even greater cost of litigation.  I do not have any reason to believe that NhRP has the wherewithall to tie up Stony Brook University.

How about getting some of the Law Guild members to weigh in on this question?

stay safe.

[MillCreek]

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/04/no-a-judge-didnt-say-chimpanzees-are-people/

[makattak]

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/04/no-a-judge-didnt-say-chimpanzees-are-people/

Ok, I see that argument. It is important to note this judge has granted this case more standing than the previous courts that simply dismissed the cases, though.

I guess we'll have to see how this develops.

(Interesting to note it's NPR pushing the idea the courts gave rights to the chimp.)

I guess we'll know by May 6th just how far this judge is willing to push it, rather than the proper avenue of dismissing the foolish claims.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's not just NPR.  I saw similar stories from the usual suspects yesterday.

They push it because it fits their agenda, and their agenda gets more play than fact or critical analysis.

[MechAg94]

I don't have to study this in detail, but it looks to me like the "unlawful detention" claim should only hinge on if the place has a permit or whatever is required to keep the chimps.  Nothing else should even enter the picture.  I guess it is unclear if the judge is trying to push an animals rights victory or not.