Now that the Supreme Court has taken off for its summer recess, it's a good time for me to take a look back at the impact of various recent legal rulings. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on the High Court rulings that primarily affect humans, since they're of little consequence, but I'll reference a couple of them just for the benefit of my biped readers.
The first case revolved around some folderol about diversity in higher education and alleged resistance to said diversity. Now I'm going ignore whatever presumption it is that lets humans refer to a four-year paid vacation from reality as "higher education" and get right to the point. As long as humans make dogs go to obedience school specifically for the purpose of learning to get along with other dogs, then I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Without a bit of obedience training we can't take you out in public because you just start yelling at strangers.
The other court case that seemed to get everybody's panties in a bunch had something to do with a couple of people in Texas who were doing it doggie-style. You can imagine what my position is on that. At any rate, you probably know that I'm an advocate for neutering humans before they're old enough to breed, specifically because they're so infantile about sex. They all do it, but they all go bonkers when anyone else does it. They'd all be much less high-strung if they were neutered. And it also helps preserve that melodious high-pitched voice in the males.
But none of that is either here nor there. What I'm really concerned about are the cases that more directly impact our lives.
Perhaps one of most significant legal rulings in my lifetime is the one coming out of Utah that rules that cats and dogs are not the same. This gives legal weight to my long-running assertion (which is also the title of my new book, due out in October) that "Dogs are from Neptune, Cats are from Uranus."
In a decision that's both despicable and retrograde, a New York court has ruled that cutting off a dog's tail does not violate an animal anti-cruelty statute. I'm like, "say what?" I mean, when there's a rule that says that no dog's tail can be longer than four inches, I'm pretty sure we're dealing with some seriously misplaced pianist envy. As our legal champion argued, dogs use their tails to communicate. The logic that tails get tangled in the briars may be true, but I'd like to point out that if we cut the tongues off of our humans, they'd get in a lot less trouble, too. That doesn't justify the act. Sheesh. (P.S. - AKC show dogs running around in briars? Those prissies? Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it.)
And here's an amusing lawsuit as told from the human POV. Apparently some guy named his dog after his next door neighbor and then went around cursing the dog by name in public. What it doesn't mention is that not only did the dog initiate her own countersuit alleging slander, but she has also changed the name of her human from "bark bark" to "barf barf."
And finally, there's the issue of just how much a dog is worth. Here's a case where God says a dog is worth "$50,000" and the Court is left to decide whether or not it dares to differ with the omnipotent one. Now there's a lot to consider in this case, but I'd like to point out that the time your dog warned you that your husband was home early and coming up the driveway was probably worth $50,000 all by itself, right? And I won't even mention how many times we've had to clean out the cat box for you. So be generous.