Two NY State Supreme Court Justices think elephants have the same constitutional rights as a person.

Now I love elephants & here's a recent post - Another great elephant video - 80 seconds

However this is really stupid. Luckily they were outvoted by five other Justices.

New York's top court sides with Bronx Zoo in elephant rights case

A 47-year-old Asian elephant who has resided at the Bronx Zoo does not have the same constitutional rights as a person, New York's top court ruled on Tuesday. 

The case stemmed from a challenge to the ongoing confinement since 1977 by the Nonhuman Rights Project, which had petitioned the zoo to recognize the elephant, named Happy, as a legal person. 

The group had argued earlier this month that Happy should be released under the writ of habeas corpus, which bars against illegal custody or imprisonment. 

But the court in a 5-2 ruling determined Happy does not have the same rights a human. 

"Because the writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty right of human beings to be free of unlawful confinement, it has no applicability to Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a 'person' subjected to illegal detention," Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote in the majority opinion. "Thus, while no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion, the courts below properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and we therefore affirm."

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Jenny Rivera disagreed, calling Happy's ongoing captivity with the zoo inhumane. 

******************

Officials at the zoo had argued Happy is well fed and cared for and looked after by trained veterinarians at a certified facility while also protected by the Animal Welfare Act.

Comments

[the Earl of Effluence - SWEAT]

These two NYS Supreme Court Justices are prime examples of the type of muddled thinking brought about in a society which can no longer even distinguish between a man and a woman, and that two people of the same sex can confect a marriage. I'm HAPPY (excuse the pun) that the opinions of these two misguided justices did not prevail.

[the Head of Heat - SWEAT]

Could it be possible those Justices were using a truncated form of the Constitution, thereby causing them to arrive at an erroneous judgement of mammoth proportions???