Discoveroids Oppose Frivolous Lawsuits

We strongly advise you to unplug your irony meters, otherwise they’re sure to explode over this one. The Discovery Institute has just posted Courts Should Punish Animal “Person” Litigators.

It’s their reaction to the news we reported in Oook, Oook — Chimps Lose in Appellate Court. You remember — the The Nonhuman Rights Project had sued and lost in their attempt to have the court grant “legal personhood” for chimps in a zoo to ensure better treatment. They were seeking a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the chimps. They lost, then appealed, and the appellate court ruled: “A chimpanzee is not a ‘person’ entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus,”

It’s an unremarkable decision, but the Discoveroids are all excited — too excited to see the irony of their position. They criticize a reporter who described the decision as “a blow for animal lovers and simian-rights advocates,” and then they say, with bold font added by us:

That is not a “blow for animal lovers!” One can love and deeply care for animals and not think they deserve treatment akin to humans. It is a blow to ideologues who think animals and people are moral equals. It is a blow to those who seek to destroy human exceptionalism. [Italics in the Discoveroids’ post.]

The Discoveroids have been posing lately as champions of what they call “human exceptionalism.” They insist that we didn’t evolve from other animals, so their latest claim is that evolution is an insult to humanity. By opposing evolution, they’re fighting for all of us against those evil Darwinists.

They quote a bit more from a news story, and then, at the end of their brief post they declare:

These animal rights activists need to pay a stiff price for filing these radical claims. The courts have the power to sanction frivolous lawsuits through financial sanctions. The time has come to impose those penalties now. Otherwise, they will just keep suing, hoping to find that one judge who wants to make history.

Lordy, lordy. How many court cases have we blogged about in which the Discoveroids were defending a creationist? Too many to recall at the moment, but there’s been an ark-load of them, and their side always loses. But they never urge the court to impose sanctions against creationists.

There’s no litigation of that nature going on at the moment. Well there’s the Mark Armitage case, but the Discoveroids haven’t said a word about it because he’s a young-Earth Creationist. But the next time some creationist goes to court, and the Discoveroids start screaming about how he lost his job because of “viewpoint discrimination” or some other slogan, we’ll remember what they just said about the chimps.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “Discoveroids Oppose Frivolous Lawsuits

  1. I see nothing to distinguish the Disco’Tute’s ‘human exceptionalism’ schtick from Narcissistic personality disorder

  2. The DI just doesn’t want to pay the chimps that write for them, or provide any other benefits, so they oppose any effort to provide rights to chimps. It’s all clear.

  3. “Human exceptionalism” is a right-wing rhetorical gimmick, and noting but.

    Thr DI types don’t want to give animals rights like those of people, because animals aren’t people. But one gets you ten they’re willing to grant such rights to corporations, which aren’t even living beings.

  4. How’s that saying go? “My irony meter just did a victory lap, then ‘sploded.”

  5. Eric Lipps says: “But one gets you ten they’re willing to grant such rights to corporations, which aren’t even living beings.”

    You guys are all worked up over nothing. Corporations have an extremely limited set of “rights,” and then only by statute. They can own property, they can make contracts, and they can sue and be sued. More accurately, these things can be done in the name of a corporation. It’s just a convenient way to do business. If everything had to be done in the names of individuals, it would be impossible to have any sizable enterprises.

  6. Well no, Curm, corporations have the right not just to religious beliefs but to discriminate and to violate anti-discrimination laws based on those religious beliefs, and to evade limits on contributions to political candidates. And while they can break laws, strangely, they never go to prison for breaking laws. The violations of law are collective, but there is no imprisonment, neither individual nor collective, for those violations.

    If everything had to be done in the names of individuals, it would be impossible to have any sizable enterprises.

    And why is that relevant to the Constitution? The very idea assumes that “sizable enterprises” necessarily must exist. If “sizable enterprises” can’t exist without ad hoc legal principles being invented, isn’t that a problem for “sizable enterprises”?

  7. Would that mean that the Discoveroids think that people who bring personhood lawsuits, or legislation, for fertilized human eggs, should be punished too?

    Like animal personhood, that is also a belief that some people, though not all, hold, and they are trying to get it established in law.

    To weasel out of that by citing “human exceptionalism” is begging the question, not a defense.

  8. I think the title of our Curmudgeon’s article here has it all backwards.

    What is needful is, Lawsuits Opposing Frivolous Discoveroids

  9. Yes, stiff penalties are called for attempts to destroy “human exceptional ism” because that’s what a theocracy would do.

  10. The whole truth

    If the discorrhoids were honest they would admit they don’t believe that all humans are exceptional. I’m sure that what they actually believe is that only humans who are just like them are exceptional at all, and I’m also sure that each of them believes that they are the most exceptional of all.