It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Garfee
We just need to grow some balls.
Originally posted by Garfee
Seriously, get real. A law that says you have no right to choose what foods you eat or grow?
We just need to grow some balls. It doesn't matter what your government's laws are, just live as ethically and morally good as you can and don't murder anyone - that's all that matters.
I'd like to see this law enforced without bloodshed because that's what it's coming down to.
"I can't recall, even a handful of defendants I've used this term with, but you're evil. You did this because you wanted to, and be damned what happened to the victims," Fiedler said.
Originally posted by DieBravely
Lynching isn't funny, it's disgusting.
Besides which, it's not the kind of thing we need in society. We can't claim to want real justice and then also do whatever we want with no regard for the law. What needs to happen is a vast overhaul of the legal system and checks and balances put into place to prevent this garbage from ever happening again. However, it's not too damn likely to ever happen.
I still disagree with lynching or any other sort of mob justice.
(I added the paragraph breaks)
After reading the judge’s ruling (which you thoughtfully provide a link to), it is firstly important to recognize that this was not a trial but a “summary judgment” – that is, a decision based upon legal briefs to avoid an actual (expensive) trial. The ruling indicates that the judge felt the arguments presented by those interested in consuming raw milk were not adequate to rule in their favor – e.g. that the people of Wisconsin do not have a “fundamental right” (i.e. one enshrined in the Constitution) to own a dairy herd. While I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any kind of lawyer, for that matter), I suspect that not having a “fundamental right” is NOT the same as saying one does not have “the right”, which is what your headline of this article states.
In any case, what I can surmise from the ruling most readily is not that the judge was biased (though he may have been), but rather that the raw milk interests did not engaged someone skilled in legal arguments to represent their interests. For a judge to assert that the arguments are “wholly without merit” and “extremely underdeveloped” is quite a strong rebuke of their attempts to assert their position from a legal standpoint, and not one that a judge would risk without having fairly clear grounds on which to state them.
The fact that the ruling is an expansion and clarification of an earlier ruling, at the request of the raw milk interests for clarification, likewise suggests that the motion for summary judgment was considered such poor advocacy that the judge didn’t even take it seriously and ruled without providing significant reasoning for the ruling.
The judge did not rule that people do not have those rights. The judge ruled that those arguments didn’t apply because the plaintiffs were operating a dairy farm. A dairy farm, which produces a product for consumers, has to meet standards higher than those which apply to people who simply want to own cows and drink their milk. He (astutely) concluded that the arguments were simply a smokescreen being used to protect a dairy farm which was violating Wisconsin quality control standards.
Originally posted by Nyteskye
How do these people sleep at night?
How does money corrupt someone's humanity like this?
OUTSTANDING!! May this rise to the top of the toilet bowl, and never be flushed until the whole world gets enough of a snoot full to wake UP! Bumped as far as one contributor can. This does in no way anger me, this is a stellar example of exactly why we're here