Killer's Rights Defended?

The lamestream media told you:

"SAN DIEGO - A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales that perform at marine parks - an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America's law schools over expansion of animal rights," according to the Associated Press. http://tinyurl.com/7zs66cr.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery... PETA relishes engaging in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns.

The plaintiffs are the five orcas - Tilikum and Katina, based at SeaWorld in Orlando; and Corky, Kasatka and Ulises at SeaWorld San Diego. Tilikum, a 6-ton male, made national news in February 2010 when he grabbed a trainer at the close of a performance and dragged her underwater until she drowned. PETA's five-member legal team spent 18 months preparing the case.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Any questions remaining about the U.S. justice system's legitimacy, and willingness to stray from the bounds of reasonable jurisprudence, were put to death today with the acceptance of a slavery lawsuit defending animals -- that belongs instead in an obscure philosophy journal, but I repeat myself.

In days when the justice system would cling vigorously to real law, a case like this would have been summarily dismissed, its perpetrator lawyers disbarred, and the legal community in need of oxygen for laughing so hard. A simple question or two from the bench would have served to sever the nonsense and ridicule the monstrous assault on American courts.

"When did your clients retain you for this action counselor?" "What are your clients' goals?" While those questions expose the silliness, the followup would deserve punishment: "Are you saying your clients don't even know you've decided to represent them, and have not agreed to be party to this suit?" And of course, "Do we need an interpreter for this case, and what language should that person speak?" The courts no longer entertain such inquiry, no matter how bizarre a case they face. In common terms, that's malfeasance, grounds for removal from office, with prejudice.

One of the unwitting so-called plaintiffs committed murder but has not been charged. The parties remained silent on whether the murder charge would apply, if the whales are granted 13th Amendment anti-slavery human rights. The Founding Fathers could not be reached to see if they expected wild animals to be covered by the Bill of Rights or Constitution.