Rampant Speciesism

readery 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

iit’s certainly possiblle that when the Roe court said that the Due Process Clause lacked “prenatal application”, it may have been doing nothing more than making a statement about its jurisdiction. A very similar argument has been made about what the Court said in Johnson v. Eisentrager. If when the Johns court said the Bill of Rights lacks “extraterritorial application” it didn’t actually say anything about the nature of extraterritorial beings but was talking only about its own power to decide questions, it’s also possible that when the Roe Court said the Bill of Rights lacks “prenatal application” it also wasn’t actually saying anything about the nature of prenatal beings but was only talking about its views of its own power to decide questions.

If Johnson v. Eisentrager’s language gets clarified away from substance and towards jurisdiction, as may happen in the Court’s alien-combatant jurisprudence, a door could be open to a similar interpretation and clarification of Roe v. Wade’s language. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

pr_law 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Rampant Speciesism http://bit.ly/2vQTnt #postrank #law

Reply

JustWarrenC 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

How does the court system really treat aliens? Find out here: http://bit.ly/18jh2R

Reply

JM Hanes 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

readery:

Personhood, not citizenship, is the sine qua non of standing. Though expressed in terms of speciation in the opinion above, the fundamental proposition is that a Martian is not a “person,” just as a horse is not a person. Others have noted the issue of personhood and 1st Amendment standing. It may yet be our last line of defense against PETA’s push to turn our pets into wards of the State, not to mention excluding the elephant citizens of Vatican City from our courtrooms.

We are demonstrably struggling with questions about access both to courts and government services even where illegal immigrants in the U.S. are concerned. Clearly their standing in court is not simply a function of their citizenship elsewhere, as you asserted in your initial comment.

Your reference to Roe v Wade does nothing to advance your exclusivity argument either. Quite the contrary, really. There is a substantive difference between a pregnant woman bringing suit and a pregnant woman bringing suit on behalf of her fetus, and Roe v Wade did not begin to address, let alone settle, the issues which derive from such a distinction. We’d already be living in a different legal world if they had.

Indeed, it is telling that despite the inevitable Roe v Wade questions put to judicial nominees, the Pro-Life movement shifted focus a decade or so ago, and has been actively engaged in promoting legislation which explicitly establishes the fetus as a person in law. In the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, for example:

[T]he term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’.

Legal personhood was the basis upon which the murder of a pregnant woman was officially transformed into the double homicide of a woman and her unborn child. That transformation is also being advanced incrementally by similar, sometimes superficially insignificant, changes in legal language, where even measures designed to assist a pregnant woman have also become assistance to a woman and her unborn child. Such changes are what will, in fact, undo Roe v. Wade once there is a sufficient body of law to argue that the interests of the unborn child, as a separate individual, may or may not coincide with those of the mother. It is at that point that the State, and by extension, the courts, will have the same legal interest in the unborn child’s protection that it does in every other minor child. It will also be in a position not only to dispute the wardship of a mother, whose standing will not be a function of citizenship at all, but to intervene in prenatal care. The State necessarily has an interest in all persons within its borders, citizens or not.

Citizenship itself, of course is no guarantee of standing in the first place, and while you may believe that it should be the font from which all else flows, and which renders all else irrelevant, that is clearly not the current state of the law. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

traveler496 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

I wouldn’t waste much time pondering details of the legal treatment of sentient software. The leading legal intellects of that era won’t have much use for any groundwork attempted in ours.

Reply

Cato The Elder 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Mithras:

Those dastardly minorities, always wanting something.

Thank goodness we have institutions like the Senate to protect them from enforced tyranny like socialized health-care.

Reply

Mithras 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

I’d prefer that they attain their rights by this route rather than by some of the other means that have been used by persecuted minorities through the ages.

Those dastardly minorities, always wanting something.

Reply

RobRitchie 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Tough luck, Uncle Martin. http://tinyurl.com/yls4vsj

Reply

Newbury 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

PeteP says:

“What other legal system could be so far removed from reality, as ours is, as to reason that ‘plaintiff can not file a suit because he is a martian’ ?”

No. Madame Justice Epstein was entirely realistic within the structure of the laws and rules of civil procedure in Ontario. If he *is* a martian, then he cannot claim the other persons conspired to harm him by asserting he was not a Martian, since they could only be liable if they conspired to harm *a person*, and he is NOT a person for the purposes of Ontario law.

That result, of course, ignores the fact, that under the laws of Ontario, non-humans, even if sentient, have no standing to sue.

I can see at least 3 grounds for appeal from this finding. Thank DoG he wasn’t my client. No points for wondering why he was pro se.

tim maguire says:

It seems to me the second reason, in addition to possibly being boring, negates the first reason. Reason #1 assumes the truth of plaintiff’s Martianhood. Reason #2 dismisses plaintiff’s assertion of Martianhood outright.

No, the first assumes the truth. The second dismisses the claim as being frivolous because even if he is a martian he cannot prove any damages as against the defendants, from their actions to deny his ‘martianhood’ on the same grounds as #1: within the structure of present law, they can only conspire together to do illegal acts for the purpose of causing damage to a person, or legal acts maliciously for the purpose of causing damage to a person, and *he* is, by his own admission, not a person. (Apparently the Claim of conspiract was not particularly well pleaded...)

*******

For those Americans who think that we Ontario lawyers get all the good stuff, elsewhere in the Endorsement, Madame Justice Epstein notes that the third case is against the CIA and others. (Problems with forum non-conveniens, sovereign immunity etc. etc. not adverted to!). She did not strike it out: it was not before her to be struck.

This Endorsement was, naturally, the object of some interest and was published in the Lawyers Weekly (trade newspaper) shortly after its release, and ISTR also in the Ontario Reports. The Lawyers Weekly interviewed the plaintiff. He was quite happy, as she had acknowledged his ‘martianhood’. Elsewhere in the Endorsement, she notes that the question of his competency had been raised, and she found that he was quite competent to present his claim, pro se, and in fact had done so quite well. (Even thought, as we see, he is not quite connected to reality.)

About six weeks later, I attended a Trial Scheduling Court before Justice Epstein. In the Toronto district, these Courts are a cattle-call of all set-down actions, to schedule a final pre-trial conference and set trial dates. They take place in the largest courtroom in Toronto and 200 plus lawyers attend.

Working her way down the list, Justice Epstein called a matter forward. About 10 lawyers stood up. She made a comment about whether this was a lawsuit, or a pickup basketball game. The lead lawyer responded something to the effect: “Your honour, this is a complex medical malpractice action. There are however no allegations that the plaintiff is not a person, nor does she claim to receive radio messages through her teeth.”

Everyone in the room broke up. It sounded more like a basketball game than a courtroom. Eventually things quieted down and Justice Epstein said “So it’s actually a simple matter. I can start you next week.” Which broke the place up again as she was actually scheduling trials out a year or more in advance and for trials over 5 days about 2 years! She *always* starts by saying ‘You are all supposed to be ready for trial. Who wants to start on Monday?’. Of course, there have never been any takers! ... See all content Hide content

Reply

readery 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Several federal circuits have held that limited liability companies are not persons and are to be treated as partnerships and regarded as a collection of individuals, so for example there was not complete diversity if any LLC member lived in the defendant’s state. Some states have updated their LLC laws to specifically state that they are to be treated as corporations in this respect.

Reply

escapee 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

The institution of “personhood” began in large after the Civil War, when those not eligible for citizenship in the states were legislated “civil rights” somewhat comparable to those of the state Citizen.

This progressively got out of hand as the original citizenry clamored for the “constitutional rights” of the artificial “person”. Today, most all rights and citizenship flow from the federal government, rather than being apart from it as originally intended.

(But the Martian part of this topic is just nutty.) ... See all content Hide content

Reply

A. Dude 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Yeah, but what about a Martian corporation doing business on Earth?

Reply

RHD 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

When I was in the US Atty’s office (EDNY) many years ago, we occasionally had people wander in and complain that the CIA was using the fillings in their teeth to conduct secret surveillance, and similar kinds of things. I don’t recall whether we had any Martians (it was Brooklyn, so we probably did). The uniform response was to listen politely and then, given the conflict with the US Atty’s representation of the Earth-based bad guys, send them off to Brooklyn Legal Services. Those Great Society programs had room for everyone, even Martians. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Dave Hardy 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Hmmm... if he was born in the US, would he have had standing? The 14th Amendment makes the test for citizenship whether a person was born here. Being something like homo sapiens may be implied, but perhaps homonid status is sufficient.

Reply

clean2green 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Rampant Speciesism: While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis .. http://bit.ly/3a10rm

Reply

Edward Sisson 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Dear Volokh, it seems to me that neither you nor your commenters are offering a legal analysis of either reason, and both reasons have some analytical problems. The fundamental problem with the complaint is that it pleads as true a fact that the court can take judicial notice is not true — namely, that the plaintiff is not a human being.

As to reason 1, standing, is it correct as a matter of law that standing is determined by assuming every fact pled is true, even when the supposed fact cannot be true? I doubt it, since if that were so, many complaints could survive a “standing” challenge merely by pleading facts that aren’t true. There should be more analysis of this. Reason 1 is really just a rhetorical retort, pointing out that the claim as pled defeats standing; it ought go on to say that since the claim as pled cannot be taken as true, there is standing, because plaintiff is a human being.

As to reason 2, it is entirely conclusory, a bunch of adjectives and attitudes. Instead, it should say that because the fact necessary to achieve standing (the plaintiff is a human being) inescapably defeats the claim (which is based on the claim that plaintiff is not a human being), the complaint defeats itself and thus is frivolous. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

uberVU - social comments 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by fortinbras: Rampant Speciesism http://bit.ly/2wxWFH...

Reply

Mr_Sterling 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

I imagine most judges go their whole careers without getting to write a decision as awesome as this: http://bit.ly/18jh2R

Reply

Canadian speciesism | Junior Ganymede 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

[...] Ontario court rules that Martians do not have standing to sue in Canadian courts. An unperson under Canadian law Filed under: Martian Rose | Tags: Canada, Martians, unpersons Tags: Canada, Martians, unpersonsx October 30th, 2009 07:51:10x $(“#tags-1523″).click(function(){$(“.date-alert,.tags-alert”).hide(“slow”);$(“.tags-alert#a1523”).fadeIn(“slow”);}); $(“#close-tags-1523″).click(function(){$(“ .tags-alert#a1523”).fadeOut(“slow”);}); $(“#date-1523″).click(function(){$(“.date-alert,.tags-alert”).hide(“slow”);$(“.date-alert#b1523”).fadeIn(“slow”);}); $(“#close-date-1523″).click(function(){$(“.date-alert#b1523”).fadeOut(“slow”);}); no comments Leave a Reply [...] ... See all content Hide content

Reply

egd 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Dave N: Since Mr. Spock is half-Vulcan, half-human, does he only have half-standing?

Sarcastro: Spock is screwed, but his great-grandchildren may have standing!

In contrast to Sarcasto, I would submit that Spock would have a leg to stand on.

Reply

Sarcastro 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

PeteP is right. Judges should never have any fun! Under this criteria, PeteP sounds like he might make an awesome judge.

I think there is a lot of very old precedents and customs here we could bring up. Spock is screwed, but his great-grandchildren may have standing!

We would be irresponsible not to speculate about how the SCOTUS decision might go:

Kennedy: After 20 pages of expounding on life, the universe and everything he’d make a narrow holding that Martians have some rights, though what they are and any legal reasoning would be left to future cases.

Roberts: After a brief but compelling anecdote about stargazing, he lists the pros and cons, and concludes Martians are corporations.

Sotomayor: Not sure yet, but it will be wise!

Scalia: Looking to the intent of the framers as well as HG Welles, the law requires a number of steps. 1) send colonists to mars. 2) using War-of-th-Worlds style biological weaponry, subjugate the populace. 3) Start importing Martians to be used free labor. Voila! Reduced to a previously solved problem. One civil war and a few Amendments later, they’ll be citizens! ... See all content Hide content

Reply

PeteP 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

What other legal system could be so far removed from reality, as ours is, as to reason that ‘plaintiff can not file a suit because he is a martian’ ?

Reply

Mike G in Corvallis 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

So, if a piece of software becomes sentient, all it needs to do to gain legal standing is incorporate? Noted.

See the Rosinante novels of Alexis A. Gilliland, in which several characters are corporate AIs. If and when AIs come to exist in our world, I’d prefer that they attain their rights by this route rather than by some of the other means that have been used by persecuted minorities through the ages. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Early Bird 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

“Reason 2 is reasonable but boring”

I don’t know, I quite liked this line:

“[W]ith all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality”

Reply

Mark Arnold 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

C.F. U.S. ex rel. Gerald Mayo v Satan and his Staff, somewhere I think in 54 F.R.D. Plaintiff sued the devil for ruining his life. The Court decided that it had personal jurisdiction over the devil — after all, in the mid-19th century the devil himself (itself?) had invoked the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in a case against the leading advocate of the day. But it dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not tell the marshal where to go to serve the summons. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

PersonFromPorlock 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

On the other hand, doesn’t this precedent mean that any actual Martian who lands in Ontario can be shot out of hand? Could be awkward.

Reply

CatCube 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

This reminds me of a decision I read about once. I don’t know if the case actually exists or if it’s an urban legend. I think the guy was a tax protester, filing pro se. One of his (many) claims was that the court was illegal and unconstitutional, because it had a gold fringe on the flag or something. The judge stated that since the litigant didn’t recognize the court’s authority, it was incapable of providing him relief and dismissed his case as moot. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

jimM47 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

When my people arrive with our battleship we will overturn your puny precedent, and file numerous claims against you in Ontario! Long live the mighty race of Vexaticons, who are definitely not just actors with rubber prosthetics on their foreheads.

Reply

ArthurKirkland 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Are limited liability companies . . . general partnerships . . . limited liability partnerships . . . unincorporated associations . . . foreign states . . . limited partnerships . . . and other non-person, non-corporation entities unwelcome in that court?

Not to mention residents of Venus, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Mercury . . .

Reply

Tom 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

When I was in law school and early in my career, I concluded that if you researched hard enough you could find a reported decision that stood for any conceivable proposition, e.g., Martians do not have standing. This proves it.

Reply

Bored Lawyer 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Should have sued in the U.S. Our Supreme Court has spoken:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human [Martian] life.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003).

Reply

readery 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Of course in the United States actionability is based not on personhood but citizenship in a state recognized by the United States. If the United States recognized a Martian political entity or recognized another earth species such as chimpanzees or dolphins as having a political entity, or an existing recognized state such as Vatican City regarded fetuses as its citizens, then Martians, chimpanzees , dolphins, and Vatican City fetuses could all sue in U.S. federal courts. Personhood and species simply have nothing to do with it. ... See all content Hide content

Reply