« Job Opportunities in the Era of Obama | Main | Captain Unaware »
August 3, 2009
Science Czar Wants Us Sued by Trees
Just how crazy do you have to be to make Science Czar in the Obamination Administration? We already know that John Holdren wanted to put a sterilizing agent in our drinking water, and that he doesn't regard children as human until they have been socialized. He also wants to "dedevelop" the United States, reducing it to a Third World hellhole. Now we learn that he wants us to be sued by trees:
Giving "natural objects" — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law would have a "most salubrious" effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.
"One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, 'Should Trees Have Standing?'" Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
"In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties," Holdren added.
The idea is to save the earth from human civilization.
Stone's article John Holdren "Should Trees Have Standing?" John Holdren which Holdren called a "tightly reasoned essay," was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972.
In that article, Stone plainly states: "I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment — indeed, to the natural environment as a whole."
Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans.
The Latin term for this well-worn liberal argument is reductio ad oppressednegroesum.
As with most moonbattery, the only ones to benefit besides petty tyrant bureaucrats are lawyers. Mary Munson of the Center for Earth Jurisprudence confirms that trees are unlikely to file suits on their own initiative, so lawyers will have to do it on their behalf.
If civilization is going to be sued to death by trees, it's nice to know that at least lawyers will profit.
Hat tip: Dakota Voice. On a tip from The MaryHunter.
Posted by Van Helsing at August 3, 2009 8:09 AM
Comments
Thats it! Im going to chop down all the trees on my property before they can testify against me in a court of law!
Posted by: Anonymous at August 3, 2009 8:29 AM
Just what trees need - lawyers.
Posted by: GeronimoRumplestiltskin at August 3, 2009 9:25 AM
The mad emperor Caligula, who tried to make his horse Incitatus a consul, is laughing hard in some corner of hell.
Posted by: Arch Conservative. at August 3, 2009 9:56 AM
That wacko looks like a granola munching tree huggger a competle wacko we certianly dont need to have our courts clogged up with stupid lawsuits from poplars HEY WE BIRDS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE THOSE ECO-FREAKS FOR ALL OF OUR FELLOW BIRDS WHO WERE KILLED OR INJURED BY THOSE STUPID WINDTURBINES SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at August 3, 2009 11:32 AM
Yeah, that's right. Let's give "natural objects" standing in court to file suit, BUT Philip Berg fails to have standing in his suit against Obama for the birth certificate.
Posted by: Lyle at August 3, 2009 11:37 AM
"So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw." - Rush
Posted by: son of a preacher man at August 3, 2009 11:48 AM
It's odd that a person can believe that trees and other natural
objects should have legal standing and protection, and simul-
taneously hold that unborn and newly born humans have none.
I'm not sure how he reconciles those two positions.
Posted by: Clinton at August 3, 2009 12:24 PM
"Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans."
So is this racist saying that Black Americans are nonhuman?
Posted by: steve at August 3, 2009 2:21 PM
But don't you see? This is PERFECT! The trees file a lawsuit and then get CUT DOWN to make paper for the summons, inditements and other paperwork. The "plantiff" fails to appier in court and the suit gets thrown out.
Problem solved.
Posted by: KHarn at August 3, 2009 3:51 PM
A couple of years ago, when I first heard Michael Savage proclaim that liberalism is a mental disorder, I thought it was a funny exaggeration. Now, between the monster who wants to put sterilization drugs in the water and this retard wanting to let trees sue people, I wonder if I simply misunderstood and he was actually dead serious.
Keeping with the theme as of late, I'm reminded of the episode entitled "The Laughing Fish" wherein the Joker decides to copyright poisoned fish in order to extort money from the seafood industry. Batman's reaction is particularly apt: "Normal criminals usually have logical motives. But the Joker's insane schemes make sense to him alone."
Posted by: Anonymous at August 3, 2009 7:07 PM
Anonymous poster above...
Now, between the monster who wants to put sterilization drugs in the water and this retard wanting to let trees sue people, I wonder if I simply misunderstood and he was actually dead serious.
The two things you refer to were discussed by the SAME person. Scary that so much stupid can be crammed into one person.
Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at August 3, 2009 7:16 PM
Annon MICHEAL SAVAGE is right liberalism is amental disorder easly cused with eletroshock theropy and getting them away from SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and HOLLYWEIRD
Posted by: Flu-Bird at August 3, 2009 11:36 PM
Hey is his podium made of wood?
Posted by: EON THE TERRIBLE at August 3, 2009 11:37 PM
