Obama Czar Cass Sunstein Radical Animal Rights Advocate

Posted September 10, 2009 04:51:29
Read all 24 opinions

Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent

Glenn Beck's: Regulatory "Czar" Cass Sunstein

He wants to BAN hunting and wants the general public to eat less meat. Eat less or not at all!

Cass Sunstein's views on litigating on behalf of animals has raised concerns for Sen. John Cornyn, who placed a hold on the nominee until he gets a chance to hear his views one-on-one.

FOXNews.com

Cass Sunstein is Obama's pick to run the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB.

Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a "hold" by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

Senators are permitted "holds" to prevent a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific reasons.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts," the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

Cornyn's hold on Sunstein comes just as Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., last week lifted his own hold on the nominee, whom Obama tapped in April to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management.

Chambliss said he was dropping his hold because Sunstein had convinced him that he "would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals," and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense."

Both statements were included in a letter Sunstein sent to Chambliss on July 14.

Chambliss added in a Senate floor speech last Wednesday that "Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country."

One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.

That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat.

The Center for Consumer Freedom's David Martosko, a Sunstein critic, said those positions make the agricultural industry -- major stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn -- nervous.

Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a "stealth campaign" on any one of these fronts -- guns or animal rights -- by putting pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.

"He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries," he said, noting that "as a regulatory czar, he won't be a judge or a legislator, so he cannot make laws. ... What he can do is nudge the departments in the direction of his philosophy," which is very much in line with "hard core animal rights zealots."

But Sunstein, who is married to National Security Council Director of Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power, has earned widely varied reviews among the political left and right, and from some of the unlikeliest of quarters.

"We still don't know much about how Obama plans to overhaul our financial regulatory system, but his reported appointment of Cass Sunstein to an important post is a promising sign," Wall Street Journal editors wrote in January, when Sunstein's possible nomination was being floated.

The paper's editors said they were cheered by Sunstein's long-held beliefs in using cost-benefit analysis in regulation -- a concept that worries proponents of greater and tighter regulations.

"We have concerns about some of his academic writings regarding his approach to regulatory policy and regulatory review," Bill Samuel, AFL-CIO legislative director, told The Chicago Tribune. "We want to hear more from him about how he intends to approach regulatory policy."

Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation. Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that "progressives would've screamed" if President Bush had nominated someone with similar views for the OIRA post." In fact, Bush did, O'Donnell noted, much to the chagrin of progressives.

Adding to animal rights and cost-benefit analysis is concern over Sunstein's positions on freedom of speech.

News of Sunstein's latest book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," lit up the blogosphere last week when The New York Post ran a column by a reviewer who received an advance copy.

Writer Kyle Smith suggested Sunstein threatens to tweak libel laws for the Internet and make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in cyberspace.

"Sunstein calls for a 'notice and take down' law that would require bloggers and service providers to 'take down falsehoods upon notice,' even those made by commenters -- but without apparent penalty," Smith wrote. "How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? (Presidential daughters) Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court."

Sunstein, a prolific writer who has penned 35 books since 1990, has plowed the issue of rumors and how they are spread, and leaves much of the policy debate in the air.

For instance, in a paper titled, "'She Said What?' 'He Did That?' Believing False Rumors," for Harvard Law School in November 2008, Sunstein wrote: "In discussions of possible restrictions on free speech, it is standard to speak of, and to deplore, the 'chilling effect' that is created by the prospect of civil or criminal sanctions."

"Libel law, for example, might chill speech about public figures and public issues, in a way that could damage democratic debate. And if there is a 'marketplace of ideas,' we should be especially concerned about the risk of chilling effect because it will undermine processes that will ultimately produce the truth," he wrote.

Sunstein, who once taught alongside Obama at the University of Chicago Law School, did not return an interview request from FOXNews.com.

But being taken for both a liberal activist and a free market cheerleader makes the nominee a true "wild card," observers say.

John Lott, conservative author of "The Bias Against Guns and Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works," called Sunstein "open minded" and a "true academic," but also warned that in its opposition, the left might be looking a gift horse in the mouth.

"My guess is that these progressives are unlikely to find anyone who could champion many of their views as well as Cass can."

Tom Firey, managing editor of the Cato Institute's Regulation magazine, said, "Sunstein really doesn't fit readily, politically or ideologically, in any box.

"I think this is going to be a very interesting nomination to watch on Capitol Hill. He's going to be getting some shots from the right and from the left. You are never going to make anyone who is a stakeholder in these debates happy," he said.

Cornyn's spokesman said the senator will be happy when he gets direct assurances from Sunstein that he will not pursue an agenda akin to some of his past writings, particularly on the animal rights issue.

"Sen. Cornyn hasn't had a chance to speak with him yet, that's the reason for the hold," said McLaughlin. "He wants to have a chance to before moving forward."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obama-regulatory-c...

+22

♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:40:04

+21
[C]ourts should ordinarily require restrictions on civil liberties to be authorized by the
legislature, not simply by the executive.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004
>> See Replies

dzynrbob October 16, 2009 03:35:05 (edited)

+1
This is one Mama Cass we can do without.

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ October 16, 2009 03:33:17

+1
Sunstein: Economic crises could usher in socialism

'With a little nudge our culture could go in many directions'

TEL AVIV – Economic crises can be used to usher socialism into the U.S., argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

In his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," Sunstein used the precedent of the Great Depression to point out that historic economic crises "provided the most promising conditions for the emergence of socialism in the U.S."

"With a little nudge or a slight change in emphasis, our culture could have gone, and could still go, in many different directions," wrote Sunstein in his book, which was reviewed by WND.

Last week, WND reported Sunstein wrote in the same book the U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country's "white majority" opposes welfare, since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics.

"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.

Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine
...

Sunstein: Economic crises could usher in socialism

'With a little nudge our culture could go in many directions'

TEL AVIV – Economic crises can be used to usher socialism into the U.S., argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

In his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," Sunstein used the precedent of the Great Depression to point out that historic economic crises "provided the most promising conditions for the emergence of socialism in the U.S."

"With a little nudge or a slight change in emphasis, our culture could have gone, and could still go, in many different directions," wrote Sunstein in his book, which was reviewed by WND.

Last week, WND reported Sunstein wrote in the same book the U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country's "white majority" opposes welfare, since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics.

"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.

Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine

In Sunstein's book, the Obama appointee openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism.

"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care and a social minimum."

Continued Sunstein: "I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic."

Sunstein claims the "socialist movement" did not take hold in the U.S. in part because of a "smaller and weaker political left or lack of enthusiasm for redistributive programs."

He laments, "In a variety of ways, subtle and less subtle, public and private actions have made it most difficult for socialism to have any traction in the United States."

Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth

WND first reported Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.

A prominent theme throughout Sunstein's 39-page paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice" and reviewed by WND, maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as "distributive justice" several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.

"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.

He posited: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

"If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives," he wrote.

Sunstein maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."

Proposed 'socialist' bill of rights

In "The Second Bill of Rights," WND also reported, Sunstein proposed a new "bill of rights" in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
(more)

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 13, 2009 05:01:35 (edited)

+20
Cass Sunstein, Regulatory Czar currently serving under President Obama, gives his views on hunting, animal slavery & right to bear arms.

reply
Beccy September 11, 2009 01:28:22

+1
WTF, where is Obama getting these nut jobs?

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:40:04

+21
[C]ourts should ordinarily require restrictions on civil liberties to be authorized by the
legislature, not simply by the executive.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:38:49

+21
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not
necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:38:26

+21
Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and
television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether,
as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving
democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of
the First Amendment in the democratic process.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. xi

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:37:44

+21
A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should
not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. 92

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:35:52

+21
People should be
much less inclined to eat meat if their refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of Chicago

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:34:48

+21
Do animals have standing? To many people, the very idea seems odd. But several cases
suggest that the answer might be yes.
In a remarkably large number of cases in the federal courts, animals appear as named
plaintiffs.
…Indeed, I have not been able to find any federal statute that allows animals to sue in
their own names. As a rule, the answer is therefore quite clear: Animals lack standing as
such, simply because no relevant statute confers a cause of action on animals.
It seems possible, however, that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to
protect their own rights and interests. Congress might do this in the belief that in some
contexts, it will be hard to find any person with an injury in fact to bring suit in his own
name. And even if statutes protecting animal welfare are enforceable by human beings,
Congress might grant standing to animals in their own right, particularly to make a public
statement about whose interests are most directly at stake, partly to increase the number
of private monitors of illegality, and partly to bypass complex inquiries into whether
prospective human plaintiffs have injuries in fact. Indeed, I believe that in some
circumstances, Congress should do just that, to provide a supplement to limited public
enforcement efforts.
--C...

Do animals have standing? To many people, the very idea seems odd. But several cases
suggest that the answer might be yes.
In a remarkably large number of cases in the federal courts, animals appear as named
plaintiffs.
…Indeed, I have not been able to find any federal statute that allows animals to sue in
their own names. As a rule, the answer is therefore quite clear: Animals lack standing as
such, simply because no relevant statute confers a cause of action on animals.
It seems possible, however, that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to
protect their own rights and interests. Congress might do this in the belief that in some
contexts, it will be hard to find any person with an injury in fact to bring suit in his own
name. And even if statutes protecting animal welfare are enforceable by human beings,
Congress might grant standing to animals in their own right, particularly to make a public
statement about whose interests are most directly at stake, partly to increase the number
of private monitors of illegality, and partly to bypass complex inquiries into whether
prospective human plaintiffs have injuries in fact. Indeed, I believe that in some
circumstances, Congress should do just that, to provide a supplement to limited public
enforcement efforts.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 259-260
(more)

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:34:26

+21
“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are
persons, or that they are not property. A state could certainly confer rights on a pristine
area, or a painting, and allow people to bring suit on its behalf, without therefore saying
that that area and that painting may not be owned. It might, in these circumstances, seem
puzzling that so many people are focusing on the question of whether animals are
property. We could retain the idea of property but also give animals far more protection
against injury or neglect of their interests.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 11

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:33:36 (edited)

+21
In the context of use of guns, it might be helpful to emphasize that the National Rifle
Association is funded in large part by gun manufacturers, and that manufacturers of guns
are often behind efforts to claim that the Constitution guarantees rights of gun ownership.
In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that the Second Amendment confers
an individual the right to own guns for nonmilitary purposes. In doing so, the Court was
greatly influenced by the social setting in which it operated, where that judgment already
had broad public support. In recent years, there has come to be a general social
understanding that the Second Amendment does protect at least some kind of individual
right; and that understanding greatly affects American politics. The Supreme Court’s
ruling in favor of an individual’s right to bear arms for military purposes was not really a
statement on behalf of the Constitution, as it was written by those long dead; it was based
on judgments that are now widespread among the living.
--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton University Press,
2009, p. 5

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:32:48

+21
…[T]he Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the Second Amendment
creates an individual right to own guns. There is a decent chance that the Court will say
that it does. Whatever the Court says, we have seen an amazingly rapid change in
constitutional understandings--even a revolution--as an apparently fraudulent
interpretation pushed by "special interest groups" (read: the National Rifle Association)
has become mainstream.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:32:27

+21
T]he Second Amendment seems to specify its own purpose, which is to protect the
"well regulated Militia." If that is the purpose of the Second Amendment (as Burger
believed), then we might speculate that it safeguards not individual rights but federalism
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:27:36

+21
Princeton University Press,
2009, p. 172-173
The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests
typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle
Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as
jurisprudential twins. The National Association of Broadcasters is prepared to make selfserving
and outlandish claims about the First Amendment before the public and before
the courts, and to pay lawyers and publicists a lot of money to help establish those claims.
(Perhaps they will ultimately succeed.) The National Rifle Association does the same
thing with the Second Amendment. In both cases, those whose social and economic
interests are at stake are prepared to use the Constitution, however implausibly invoked,
in order to give a veneer of principle and respectability to arguments that would
otherwise seem hopelessly partisan and self-interested.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Republic 2.0, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 173

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:27:28

+21
Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns.
The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on
various grounds. As late as 1980, it would have been preposterous to argue that the
Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, and no federal court
invalidated a gun control restriction on Second Amendment grounds until 2007. Yet
countless Americans politicians, in recent years, have acknowledged that they respect the
individual right to bear arms, at least in general terms. Their views are a product of the
energetic efforts of meaning entrepreneurs – some from the National Rifle Association,
who have press a particular view of the Second Amendment.
--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds,

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:22:01

+21
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily
in the interest of citizenship and
self-government."

-Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the
Internet in his book, Republic.com 2.0 (page 137

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:21:33

+21
"[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."

- Cass Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,”
August 2002

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:21:19

+21
"[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings."

- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

reply
♥Nicole~M♥ September 10, 2009 22:21:02

+21
"Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"

- 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions

reply

1 2 Next » Last »

About Me

♥Nicole~M♥

Fresno, CA, US

SodaHead since April 30, 2008 21:52:18

Status: Do as I say, not as I do.

View complete profile

News

Michelle Obama Would Trade Places With Beyonce: Who Would You Trade Places With?

In an interview with People magazine, Michelle Obama admitted that she would trade places with pop singer Beyonce if she could.
Bill Clinton Poses With Porn Stars: Acceptable or Unprofessional?

Bill Clinton has seen bigger scandals in his time, but a recent photograph of the former president is dragging him into a little bit of unwanted controversy.

Politics

Who Do You Think Will Ultimately Win the 2012 Election?

It's going to be a long, hard fight between Barack Obama and his likely GOP competitor, Mitt Romney. But who do you think will ultimately win?
Who Do You Think Currently Has the Upper Hand in the 2012 Election?

It's going to be a long, hard fight between Barack Obama and his likely GOP competitor, Mitt Romney. But who do you think currently has the upper hand?