October 21, 2004
FRY WILLIE (via Raoul Ortega):
Appeals court: Whales have no standing to sue to stop sonar (KIM CURTIS, 10/20/04, ASSOCIATED PRESS)
A federal appeals court decided Wednesday that marine mammals have no standing to sue to stop the U.S. Navy from using sonar.Posted by Orrin Judd at October 21, 2004 1:44 PMIn upholding a lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the world's cetaceans - whales, porpoises and dolphins - have no standing under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.
If lawmakers "intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly," said Judge William A. Fletcher, writing for the panel.
But only if they are represented by animal lawyers!
Oooooops! That's redundant, isn't it?
Posted by: Oswald Booth Czolgosz at October 21, 2004 1:53 PMRes ipsa flippertur.
Posted by: Axel Kassel at October 21, 2004 1:54 PMI have trouble with the jurisdictional concept of 'standing' applied to swimming beasts. However, sounds pretty good to me as a rule-of-thumb: if you can't stand, you can't sue (we'll have to figure out a different prohibition for chimps). I'm surprised that Judge Fletcher wrote the decision; he's a hard-core lefty who, had I to wager before the decision, would have bet him to land in favor of the beasts. The groups bringing these suits are anti-military, whose agenda is to restrict (if not eliminate) the military's ability to test and train (such as amphibious landings at Camp Pendleton).
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 21, 2004 1:55 PMStand by depth charges!
Posted by: Mike Morley at October 21, 2004 2:09 PMI interviewed Sinkin when this started. It was the weirdest interview with a lawyer I've ever done
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 21, 2004 2:11 PMWow. Speaking of parody destroying reality.
Someone should ask Theresa what she thinks of this. That could be entertaining. Kerry's too smart to say something stupid about this, though it does remind me of a comment he made back in April.
Posted by: Timothy at October 21, 2004 2:30 PMSo I guess that means that the plaintiff's cause of action sleeps with the fishes, eh?
Posted by: Mike Morley at October 21, 2004 2:55 PMDon't laugh too hard, gentlemen. It's coming.
Posted by: Peter B at October 21, 2004 3:31 PMHow about reciprocity: whales can sue humans for using sonar as soon as, say, squid can sue whales for using sonar.
"Finding Nemo A Lawyer" etc. ad nauseam.
Posted by: BlogDog at October 21, 2004 4:30 PMThe survivors of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis could file a class action suit against Family Lamnidae.
Posted by: Governor Breck at October 21, 2004 9:11 PMGov, do they have deep pockets?
Posted by: Uncle Bill at October 22, 2004 4:03 PM