Blah!
From Decision of the Day, regarding a complaint that the Founder's would have rejected mandatory blood extraction from inmates:
Among Hook’s more creative arguments is his Eighth Amendment claim, for which he offers "an uncited, but novel assertion that the Founding Fathers would have considered ‘blood extraction’ to be ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ because, purportedly, ‘[v]ampires were feared and vilified’ at the time of the Founding.’" The Seventh Circuit spends 17 pages sorting through these arguments and rejecting each. As for the vampire claim, the Court explains that regardless of how the Founders may have viewed vampires, "blood extraction by a vampire is certainly distinguishable from a sanitary blood draw under current medical practice."
I always love it when a court looks a stupid argument and, rather than just saying "Well, that's dumb", instead deal with it rationally. Fun for everybody!
Among Hook’s more creative arguments is his Eighth Amendment claim, for which he offers "an uncited, but novel assertion that the Founding Fathers would have considered ‘blood extraction’ to be ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ because, purportedly, ‘[v]ampires were feared and vilified’ at the time of the Founding.’" The Seventh Circuit spends 17 pages sorting through these arguments and rejecting each. As for the vampire claim, the Court explains that regardless of how the Founders may have viewed vampires, "blood extraction by a vampire is certainly distinguishable from a sanitary blood draw under current medical practice."
I always love it when a court looks a stupid argument and, rather than just saying "Well, that's dumb", instead deal with it rationally. Fun for everybody!
posted by Mad Jurist at 5:12 PM
1 comments
