Welcome to the New York’s theater of the absurd.

After the embarrassment of having her first choice for the state’s chief judge rejected by the state Senate, Gov. Kathy Hochul has chosen Judge Rowan D. Wilson as her new nominee.

In our view, this is a major overcorrection. Wilson is likely to face an easier confirmation hearing from Senate Democrats — but should the head of New York’s court system really be a judge who argued that an elephant should actually have standing to sue in court?

Last year, Wilson was thankfully outnumbered on the state Court of Appeals in the court’s decision in Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project Inc. v. Breheny, a case that garnered national attention for an animal rights group’s petition to move a female elephant to a nature preserve. The Court of Appeals denied the application, but Wilson wrote a 17-page dissenting opinion arguing there shouldn’t be limits to the writ of habeus corpus, a fundamental right protecting against unlawful detention and imprisonment while equating the elephant’s situation to those faced by abused women and children and slaves.

Former Chief Judge Janet DeFiore and a court majority she cobbled together shot down Wilson’s legal reasoning in a strongly worded opinion. Think about the words DeFiore uses in this opinion.

“Instead,” DeFiore continued, Judges Wilson and (Jenny) Rivera “conclude that the logical progression of our common law runs from extending habeas to ‘abused women and children and enslaved persons’ … to granting an elephant the right to bring a habeas proceeding, an odious comparison with concerning implications – as both dissenters acknowledge but one on which they nevertheless rely. We are unpersuaded.”

Senate Democrats should similarly be unpersuaded by Wilson’s candidacy to be chief judge. While one opinion shouldn’t define a candidate, the recency of Wilson’s dissent in the case of Happy the elephant is concerning, as are thoughts of the type of court decisions that could come out of the Court of Appeals if the court takes on Wilson’s legal reasoning.

The case of Happy the elephant was absurd. In our opinion, it’s just as absurd that a judge who swallowed that line of legal reasoning is about to be promoted to lead a court system. Surely we can do better.

What’s next? Appointing Dumbo the Elephant to fill Wilson’s potentially vacant position on the Court of Appeals? We wouldn’t be surprised.