Those raw milk proponents advocating "teach, teach, teach" may want to enroll Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in their first class--in the kindergarten section.
In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are "wholly without merit."
He explained that the FTCLDF arguments were "extremely underdeveloped." As an example, he said the plaintiffs' use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does "not explain why a woman's right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk...This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue." Gee, I thought they both had to do with the right to decide what to do with your own body.
As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"
pick your jaw up and go read the rest of the article at The Complete Patient
Thanks to the prepper podcast for the heads up on this
14 comments:
seriously? does this judge have his head up his ass?
There goes the cheeseheads
Does this mean that next Spring I have to take a list of things I want to grow in my garden to the District Court and get their approval to plant ?
Yes Bob, it does. You will also need to get your food handlers license and if you are having friends over make sure you display your restaurant operator certificate and your health department rating in the window.
When are we going to learn that it's simply cheaper to hang these Bastards?
YOF
Given that Roe v. Wade is widely acknowledged as "bad law" meaning that the 4th Amendment protection has nothing to do with a right to privacy, I can see how despite many iterations of Roe as precedent no judge would want to continue the slide by expanding the Roe position. This is their way of saying that somehow sex and it's consequences are one thing (Roe, Doe, Lawrence v TExas), but actually a right to privacy regarding choices for food, health, etc are not allowable. Even if you are for the dubiously named "choice", you must see how unequally this is being applied and how strange that we must protect these things over and above a whole history of nutritional lifestyles.
Is it just me or does this "free" country really not feel very free at all anymore? How can we continue to call it that when even basic human choices like what foods to eat or grow on our own are taken away from us?
Maybe every gardener in the Wisconsin area, or anywhere in the USA should submit their planting list to Judge Fielder for approval. Maybe a few hundred thousand lists might get his attention !
pretty soon, they will outlaw breast milk at the rate they are going. this makes no sense
Sounds like Kalifornia!!!
What's more scary to me is that his decision will, likely, be used as precedent-setting for people who wish to grow some of their own food, but live in places (urban and suburban, for instance) where such things are frowned upon. We're already seeing cases where homeowners are being fined and jailed because of their gardens.
Between this "decision" and the passing of laws like the recent "Food and Safety Act", we're going to end up with no choice, but the food the government decides is "safe" for us. Nice way to make us all dependent, and therefore slaves. Seems our government has finally figured out what's stronger than chains.
holy cow. Just... wow. Hey, that was a pun! But seriously... where are these people from? No right to have a dairy cow?
Hey Judge, Up your nose with a rubber hose!
Post a Comment