2 ms·

> and the term 'fish' has zero scientific category or phylum. And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish.

• shadowgovt 4y ago
  Somewhere, on some metaphysical plane, Diogenes is running desperately through the equivalent of a hallway towards the equivalent of a forum with the equivalent of a can of tuna in his hand.
  • robonerd 4y ago
    Diogenes de-bones a chicken, rendering it an invertebrate.
  • q_andrew 4y ago
    If this isn't a quote from somewhere, thanks for the funniest original comment I've seen in months
  • mcphage 4y ago
    I believe if you look closely, you’ll see that it’s actually a can of bees.
• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish. A bumblebee is clearly an invertebrate. The statute explicitly defines “fish” for the purpose of the power at issue as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” [Cal. Fish & Game Code § 45, emphasis added] A bumblebee is, unmistakably, a “fish” under the applicable statutory definition. The challenge to the executive branch action here called on the court to disregard the express language of the statute granting regulatory authority.