Banning sale of downer pigs in California? YES PLEASE. »
It could happen, folks. This case is going all the way to the Supreme Court and God and Asshole Lobbyists willing, the judges won’t be total dumbasses about it. Light a candle, people, because this is something we know we can’t count on. You see, there was a law passed banning the sale of downer pigs (yay!) and then the American Meat Association was all, “BUT BUT BUT WAHHHHH!!!” and then they did what they did best: threw tons of money at the problem! Brilliant! Why didn’t we think of that! Oh that’s right, there the only ones who aren’t FLAT BROKE. It pays to abuse animals! Anyway, as soon as the AMA raised a fuss, that shit was overturned in Fresno, Calif., and now the battle goes to the Supreme Court.
Care.com breaks it down:
If the state law of California can hamper the pork production and profit making of the pork industry, other states might then be able to enact similar laws, further cutting into industry profits. The meat packers want to overturn such a ban and the efforts of a very large state such as California to regulate slaughterhouse operations in a way they don’t like. If the the Supreme Court rules against the ban on using lame pigs for meat, then it may become the legal framework preventing any other states from ever enacting a similar ban, and therefore the meat packing industry wins the whole game. Also if the the meat packing plants can legally simply shove all the lame and sick pigs into the grinder so to speak, there won’t be any evidence of animal disease, neglect or abuse remaining.
The Supreme Court will begin reviewing the case in October: National Meat Association vs. Harris, 10-224.
An aside: I love Herbivore’s BACON HAD A MOM t-shirt, and think they should add a: YOUR BACON WAS A PIG WHO COULDN’T WALK BECAUSE SHE’D BEEN ABUSED SO BADLY ENJOY YOUR BREAKFAST, ASSHOLE. You like?!
∞ posted at 09:36 by laurahooperb
Speaking of the Supreme Court, here’s a case we’ve already lost. Justice Clarence Thomas is refusing to recuse himself in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, which will hit the Court next month. Thomas, one of the reliable right-wingers on our already conservative-leaning Court, was an employee of
Satan Monsanto from 1976 to 1979. It’s an obvious conflict of interest.
The worst part of it? Justice Steven Breyer, a reliable liberal vote on the Court, is recusing himself from ruling on the case, because his brother, Charles Breyer, ruled in the original 2007 case. At issue is (what else?) genetically modified crops:
The court will hear Monsanto’s third appeal in the Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms case, which called for the halt of planting GM alfalfa seeds until an Environmental Impact Statement was completed.
The lawsuit was filed by organizations like the Center for Food Safety, the National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Dakota Resources Council and other farming groups and environmental associations.
One of the plaintiffs, alfalfa farmer Pat Trask said Monsanto’s biotech alfalfa would ruin his alfalfa seed business because his 9,000 acres would be contaminated by the genetically modified crops.
Remember, this is the same Monsanto that sues farmers when the company’s patented seeds (a concept that, on its own, should make anyone want to throw things) blow from their customers’ land onto those other farmers’ land and take root. This lawsuit would turn the tables, and treat Monsanto’s “intellectual property” like the contaminant it is. Too bad it’s already lost.
∞ posted at 13:10 by stevesimitzis
The decision in United States v. Stevens was 8-1 against the law banning “the interstate sale of depictions of torture and killing of animals” based on its violation of First Amendment rights, and get this—that one vote keeping the ban in place was Samuel goddamn Alito.
The world, you guys, is upside-down today.
(link via Wonkette)
∞ posted at 10:58 by time-for-naps