Sunstein will oversee reform of regulations, seeking to find smarter approaches and better results in the areas of health, environment and other domestic areas, a transition source said.
This does not even strike me as odd. Anyway, since it was common practice to drag animals to court back in medieval times, it only seems logically that animals now could become able to sue.
Depending on his meaning of that sentence depends on my view of it. For example if he means a person my sue someone else on the behalf of their animal then i can see the pros for that but the other view is that the animal may choose so sue for themselves...... What on earth would happen there? Lawyer: Is it true the defendant treated you like a dog? Dog: Woof!! Lmao just my two cents
For example if he means a person my sue someone else on the behalf of their animal then i can see the pros for that but the other view is that the animal may choose so sue for themselves.....
how can a person represent the will of an animal if they are not possible to communicate. animals are by law treated as the property of the owner, so the owner can sue someone or be sued if the animal does something wrong.
if animals could sue someone, then you also could sue animals and taht is simply ridiculous
Wtf? That guy is saying animals should be able to sue people, and we're letting him in office? That's messed up. He's like a mega-environmentalist. That's idiotic. ANIMALS SUING? Come on people! Animals can't speak to us! They're entirely on a lower level! We eat them for breakfast and now they can sue us? I repeat: that's idiotic! Now, a human suing for an animal(such as if the animal was mistreated), that I'm fine with. But an animal in court? That's not right! Why would animals even want to sue humans or vice versa? This would just be a front so the owners of the various animals could earn money through them in court, and the animal can't do anything because it can't speak. What would an animal do with the money it gets from court? Nothing! The stupid notions people come up with...*mutters*
Say you have a chimpanzee who was in movies and has learned sign language, if they wanted to shouldn't they have a right to sue over the ownership rights of the movies, or distribution, or whatever?
That doesn't sound completely ludicrous to me, though the chances that you would get an animal who would have a desire to sue a person are rather low, if one wanted to, and was able to convey those wishes I'm not sure how I could feel justified saying they couldn't.
Say you have a chimpanzee who was in movies and has learned sign language, if they wanted to shouldn't they have a right to sue over the ownership rights of the movies, or distribution, or whatever?
that would imply the chimpanzee having a deep understandig of the meaning of ownership rights and so on. since he has not thist ability he cannot sue a person.
and btw. i think we will never be out of debt, because we all get sued by the relatives of all the chickens cows and pigs we have eaten so far.
I believe he means a human suing a human on behalf of the animal, not an animal suing a human directly.
And most monkeys/apes/whatever/ that use sign language end up saying things like "Want food now". Although, I do remember that story about the chimp who compared the other chimp that stole food from the first to a toilet. xD
