Language: en
Meaning: A parade featuring a progression of people wearingcomicandgrotesquecostumes, commonly accompanied byfloatsandmodelsrepresenting monsters.; (law,informal)Anyrhetoricaldevice presenting aseriesofterribleresultsthatnotionallymight follow from anact, instead of confining the argument to theexplicitterms of any applicable law.1970, Philip B. Kurland, “Enter the Burger Court: The Constitutional Business of the Supreme Court”, inThe Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1970, pages48–49:The Chief Justice was adamant, if alone:'Nothing in the language orglosspreviously placed on thisprovisionof the Fifth Amendment remotely justifies the treatment which the Court today accords to thecollateral-estoppeldoctrine. Nothing in the purpose of the authors of the Constitution commands or even justifies what the Court decides today; this is truly a case of expanding a sound basic principle beyond the bounds — or needs — of its rational and legitimate objectives toprecludeharassment of the accused.'His position rested on the proposition that a secondprosecutionwasbarredonly if it was for the sameoffenseand here the victims were different and, therefore, the offenses were different. After aparade of horribles, the Chief Justiceconcluded:'What the Court isholdingis, in effect that the second and third and fourth criminal acts are "free", unless the accused is tried for the multiple crimes in a single trial — something defendantsfranticallyuse every legal device to avoid, and often succeed in avoiding. This is the reality of what the Court holds today; it does not make good sense and it cannot make good law.'.1980, Warren E. Burger, “Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)”, inJustia U.S. Supreme Court Center: Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), page316:Tobuttresshis argument, thepetitioner, with the support ofamicus, points to grave risks that may be generated by researchendeavorssuch asrespondents. The briefs present agruesomeparade of horribles. Scientists, among them Nobellaureates, are quoted suggesting thatgeneticresearchmay pose a serious threat to the human race, or, at the very least, that the dangers are far toosubstantialto permit such research to proceedapaceat this time. We are told that genetic research and relatedtechnologicaldevelopments may spreadpollutionand disease, that it may result in a loss of geneticdiversity, and that its practice may tend todepreciatethe value of human life. These arguments are forcefully, evenpassionately,presented; they remind us that, at times, humaningenuityseems unable to control fully the forces it creates — that, with Hamlet, it is sometimes better 'to bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.'It is argued that this Court should weigh these potential hazards in considering whether respondent's invention ispatentablesubject matter under §101. We disagree. The grant or denial of patents on micro-organisms is not likely to put an end to genetic research or to its attendant risks. The large amount of research that has already occurred when no researcher had sure knowledge that patent protection would be available suggests that legislative orjudicialfiatas to patentability will notdeterthe scientific mind fromprobinginto the unknown any more than Canute could command the tides. Whether respondent's claims are patentable maydeterminewhether research efforts areacceleratedby the hope of reward or slowed by want ofincentives, but that is all.1992, Geoffrey R. Stone, Richard Allen Epstein, Cass R. Sunstein,The Bill of Rights in the Modern State, page356:The majority trotted out aparade of horriblesin which judicial line-drawing concerning accommodation would displace legitimate democratic choices.
Validation Count: 0
Sourced from Wiktionary