PDA

View Full Version : Regime relentless efforts to destroy America ...



LWW
05-11-2010, 05:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,"
-Czar Cass Sunstein-</div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;OH DEAR&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Sunstein.pdf)

Where are the leftists who protested that B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! was wanting to create a dictatorship?

LWW

pooltchr
05-11-2010, 06:58 AM
Damn, that's news to me! I had no idea that it was up to the president to determine the meaning of federal law. Why even bother having a supreme court???

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,"
-Czar Cass Sunstein-</div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;OH DEAR&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Sunstein.pdf)

Where are the leftists who protested that B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! was wanting to create a dictatorship?

LWW </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Commentary
Cass Sunstein For Regulation Czar
Richard L. Revesz and Michael A. Livermore, 05.12.09, 05:50 PM EDT
Neither an easy ally, nor a wilting lily.

Cass Sunstein






The painful costs of under-regulation are widely apparent: from a real estate bubble built on bad lending practices, to the looming threat of climate change. Some business leaders may not admit it, but good regulation saves society money by setting the rules of the road. Without wise regulation, economic growth too often comes with a price tag that is more than it is worth.

More than any position in government, the "Regulation Czar" is charged with balancing economic growth with social risk. To fill this position, President Obama has selected Professor Cass Sunstein, an intellectual heavyweight who is a progressive but no ideologue.

Sunstein is well known for his academic writings, which touch on everything from constitutional law to behavioral economics. His appointment to director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is a harbinger of the administration's commitments--yes, we need to grow the economy, but sound economics need not conflict with smart regulation.

On May 12, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee held a hearing on Professor Sunstein's nomination. Sunstein's comments confirm that he is neither a friend nor a foe of regulation. Instead, he discussed a new approach to cost-benefit analysis and regulation that is thoughtful, pragmatic and fair.

Sunstein's remarks made clear that for him, cost-benefit analysis is not an intellectual exercise but a means to deliver greater benefits for the American public at lower costs. It should not be used as a hammer to beat back regulation, nor should it be discarded in favor of omnipotent federal agencies. Instead it should be employed judiciously to select regulatory approaches that achieve maximum net benefits for society.

This new approach to regulation could not come at a better time. The recent fiscal meltdown clarified the degree of our interconnectedness--a loose screw on Wall Street can send homes in Arizona to the foreclosure auction blocks; a blind eye in Washington can result in a tsunami of wet coal sludge in Tennessee. We can no longer afford to pay the social cost of letting corporations "self-regulate," nor can we afford to place unnecessary burdens on already struggling businesses.

From his remarks in his committee hearing as well as from his writings, it is obvious that Sunstein is sensitive to this tightrope walk. Those in the business community looking for an easy ally are barking up the wrong tree. Those in the progressive community hoping for a wilting lily will also be sorely disappointed.

Sunstein believes in a robust regulatory state, but he also acknowledges that regulations can be more or less efficient at achieving their goals. As OIRA director, he will look for strong standards to reduce economic, environmental and public health risks. But he will also look to make sure the market is not shackled and businesses are given maximum flexibility to reduce risks at the lowest possible costs.

</div></div>

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/12/cass-sunstein-regulation-czar-opinions-contributors-senate.html



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sean Hannity and Congressman Joe Wilson, Son of the Confederacy, were putting powder on Bill O'Reilly's cheeks when Glenn Beck breezed in. They immediately congratulated Glenn Beck for standing up for his convictions and revealing that Cass Sunstein is "a man who doesn't believe we should be eating meat, a man who believes that animals should be provided attorneys in the courts of law, a man who believes that everyone must be an organ donor, and a man who believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain."

Glenn Beck thanked Sean Hannity and Joe Wilson, Son of the Confederacy, for their kind words. When a Pravda TV executive approached Congressman Joe Wilson, he said, "That's offensive to me that anyone would take my Confederate heritage -- based on the owning and trading of human beings as property -- and make it into a Holocaust-era type description. I find that very offensive."

Congressman Joe Wilson barely acknowledged Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck as they raved about his impromptu speech and studied his words under forced convection in a wind tunnel, with a microwave transmitter that heated intact leaves of various sizes and shapes in vivo.

Glenn Beck smiled as he bid Congressman Joe Wilson goodbye. He led Sean Hannity to a nearby table. When Sean Hannity was seated, Glenn Beck announced that his viewers weren't interested in hearing about his pet charities. According to Glenn Beck, his viewers instead wanted to know why Sean Hannity advocates the use of Sharia law in the United States.

Sean Hannity countered that the Pravda TV network would be willing to overlook Glenn Beck's accusation that Cass Sustein is a crazed animal-rights activist if Glenn Beck would explain why he tortured and killed all those Pit Bulls.

"You were caught with a 'break' or 'parting' stick for prying open Pit Bulls' mouths during fights and an electric treadmill modified for Pit Bulls," Sean Hannity said. "Everyone thinks it's kind of strange that you never talk anymore on your TV show about those Pit Bulls you hanged, electrocuted, and drowned."

"The hell I will," Glenn Beck said.
</div></div>

Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Why Did Glenn Beck Accept Plea Deal in Dogfighting Case?
http://shimmykat.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-did-glenn-beck-accept-plea-deal-in.html


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (July 2009)
Cass Sunstein


Born September 21, 1954 (1954-09-21) (age 55)

Residence Cambridge, Massachusetts
Nationality American
Fields Constitutional law, Administrative Law
Institutions Harvard Law School

University of Chicago Law School


Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Alma mater Harvard College
Harvard Law School
Known for soft paternalism, choice architecture, cyberbalkanization
Cass R. Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School,[1] where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.


Table of Contents1 Early life and education
2 Career
3 Views
3.1 Legal philosophy
3.2 Military Commissions
3.3 First Amendment
3.4 Animal rights
3.5 Taxation
3.6 Marriage
3.7 Conspiracy theories and government infiltration
4 Personal
5 Publications
5.1 Books
6 See also
7 References
8 External links




Early life and education
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)

Sunstein was born on September 21, 1954 into a Jewish-American family. He graduated in 1972 from the Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1975 from Harvard College, where he was a member of the varsity squash team and the Harvard Lampoon. In 1978, Sunstein received a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and part of a winning team of the Ames Moot Court Competition. He served as a law clerk first for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1978–1979) and later for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court (1979–1980).


Career
Sunstein worked in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department as an attorney-advisor (1980–1981) and then took a job as an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School (1981–1983), where he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science (1983–1985). In 1985, Sunstein was made a full professor of both political science and law; in 1988, he was named the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School and Department of Political Science. The university honored him in 1993 with its "distinguished service" accolade, permanently changing his title to Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School and Department of Political Science.

Sunstein was the Samuel Rubin Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in the fall of 1986 and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School in the spring 1987, winter 2005, and spring 2007 terms. He teaches courses in constitutional law, administrative law, and environmental law, as well as the required first-year course "Elements of the Law", which is an introduction to legal reasoning, legal theory, and the interdisciplinary study of law, including law and economics. In the fall of 2008 he joined the faculty of Harvard Law School and began serving as the director of its Program on Risk Regulation:[2]

The Program on Risk Regulation will focus on how law and policy deal with the central hazards of the 21st century. Anticipated areas of study include terrorism, climate change, occupational safety, infectious diseases, natural disasters, and other low-probability, high-consequence events. Sunstein plans to rely on significant student involvement in the work of this new program.[2]
On January 7, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that Professor Sunstein will be named to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).[3] That news generated controversy among progressive legal scholars[4] and environmentalists.[5]

In his research on risk regulation, Professor Sunstein is known for developing, together with Timur Kuran, the concept of availability cascades, wherein popular discussion of an idea is self-feeding and causes individuals to overweight its importance. Professor Sunstein's books include After the Rights Revolution (1990), The Partial Constitution (1993), Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (1995), Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (1996), Free Markets and Social Justice (1997), One Case at a Time (1999), Risk and Reason (2002), Why Societies Need Dissent (2003), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (2005), Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary (2005), Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (2006), and, co-authored with Richard Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008).

Sunstein's 2006 book, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, explores methods for aggregating information; it contains discussions of prediction markets, open-source software, and wikis. Sunstein's 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. His 2001 book, Republic.com, argued that the Internet may weaken democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups that share their own views and experiences, and thus cut themselves off from any information that might challenge their beliefs, a phenomenon known as cyber balkanization.

Sunstein co-authored Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008) with economist Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. Nudge discusses how public and private organizations can help people make better choices in their daily lives. Thaler and Sunstein argue that

People often make poor choices – and look back at them with bafflement! We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself.[citation needed]
The ideas in the book proved popular with politicians such as Barack Obama, David Cameron, and the British Conservative Party in general (Cameron is party leader).[6][7][8] The "Nudge" idea has not been without criticism. Dr Tammy Boyce of public health foundation The King's Fund has said:

We need to move away from short-term, politically motivated initiatives such as the 'nudging people' idea, which are not based on any good evidence and don't help people make long-term behaviour changes.[9]
Sunstein is a contributing editor to The New Republic and The American Prospect and is a frequent witness before congressional committees. He played an active role in opposing the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.

In recent years, Sunstein has been a guest writer on The Volokh Conspiracy blog as well as the blogs of law professors Lawrence Lessig (Harvard) and Jack Balkin (Yale). He is considered so prolific a writer that in 2007, an article in the legal publication The Green Bag coined the concept of a "Sunstein number" reflecting degrees of separation between various legal authors and Sunstein, paralleling the Erdős numbers sometimes assigned to mathematician authors.

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (elected 1992) and the American Law Institute (since 1990).

Sunstein's confirmation had been long blocked because of controversy over allegations about his political and academic views. On September 9, 2009, the Senate voted for cloture on Sunstein's nomination as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. The motion passed in a 63–35 vote. The Senate confirmed Sunstein on September 10, 2009 in a 57–40 vote.


Views

Legal philosophy
Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. Some view him as liberal[10], despite publicly supporting George W. Bush's judicial nominees Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts, supporting rights under the Second Amendment [11], and his providing strong theoretical support for the death penalty[12]. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

In recent years Sunstein has collaborated with academics who have training in behavioral economics, most notably Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, and Christine M. Jolls, to show how the theoretical assumptions of law and economics should be modified by new empirical findings about how people actually behave.

The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.[citation needed]

Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people's decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term "choice architect."


Military Commissions
In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush's creation of military commissions without Congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist that "[u]nder existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions" and that "President Bush's choice stands on firm legal ground." Sunstein scorned as "ludicrous" the argument from Law Professor George Fletcher that the Supreme Court would find Bush's military commissions without any legal basis. Four years later—in its Hamdan ruling—the Supreme Court, with Justice Stevens in the majority, held that Bush lacked the legal authority to create military commissions without approval from Congress, i.e., the Court (and Stevens) found Bush lacked exactly the "legal authority" which Sunstein vehemently insisted he possessed.[13]


First Amendment
In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes' conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[14] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[15] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[16] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[17] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”[15]


Animal rights
Some of Sunstein's work has addressed the question of animal rights, as he co-authored a book dealing with the subject, has written papers on it, and was an invited speaker at "FACING ANIMALS," an event at Harvard University described as "a groundbreaking panel on animals in ethics and the law."[18] “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,” he says, continuing that "we might conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high." [19]

Sunstein's views on animal rights generated controversy when Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) blocked his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama. Chambliss objected to the introduction of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot sue for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.


Taxation
Sunstein has argued, “We should celebrate tax day.”[20] Sunstein argues that since government (in the form of police, fire departments, insured banks, and courts) protects and preserves property and liberty, individuals should happily finance it with their tax dollars:

In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live? Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public… There is no liberty without dependency.[20]
Sunstein goes on to say:

If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected. [...] This is why the overused distinction between "negative" and "positive" rights makes little sense. Rights to private property, freedom of speech, immunity from police abuse, contractual liberty and free exercise of religion—just as much as rights to Social Security, Medicare and food stamps—are taxpayer-funded and government-managed social services designed to improve collective and individual well-being.

Marriage
In a recent book, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an "official license scheme."[21]


Conspiracy theories and government infiltration
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[22] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[22]

Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[22] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators,[23][24] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[25]


Personal
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Sunstein was married to Lisa Ruddick, whom he met as an undergraduate at Harvard.[26] She is now a professor of English at the University of Chicago.[27] Their marriage ended not long after the birth of their daughter, Ellyn. He then began seeing Martha Nussbaum, philosopher, classicist, and professor of law at the University of Chicago.[28]

On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married Samantha Power, professor of public policy at Harvard, whom he met when they worked as advisors to Sunstein's friend, and former colleague at the U. of C. Law School,[29] President Barack Obama, on his presidential campaign. The wedding took place in County Kerry in Power’s native Ireland.[30]

Sunstein had a pet Rhodesian ridgeback, Perry. During the Clinton impeachment hearings, Sunstein grew tired of appearing on news programs, and agreed to appear on Greta Van Susteren's CNN program only if he could bring Perry on the show with him; she agreed.[31] Perry died in the fall of 2008. The University Of Chicago Law School has created the Perry/Sunstein fund in Perry's memory, a scholarship fund for a student with an interest in animal welfare.

Sunstein is named after the 19th century American politician Lewis Cass[citation needed].


Publications

Books
Law and Happiness (The University of Chicago Press 2010) ISBN 9780226676005
On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done (Macmillan Publishers 2009)
Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide (Oxford University Press, 2009)
Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness with Richard Thaler (Yale University Press, 2008)
Worst-Case Scenarios, (Harvard University Press 2007)
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press 2007)
Are Judges Political? An Empirical Investigation of the Federal Judiciary with David Schkade, Lisa Ellman, and Andres Sawicki, (Brookings Institution Press 2006)
Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, (Oxford University Press 2006)
The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, (Basic Books 2006)
Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Basic Books 2005)
Constitutional Law 5th ed. with G. Stone, L.M. Seidman, P. Karlan, and M. Tushnet, (Aspen 2005)
The Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (based on the Seeley Lectures 2004 at Cambridge University), (Cambridge University Press 2005)(Trad. esp.: Leyes de miedo, Buenos Aires/Madrid, Katz editores S.A, 2009, ISBN 9788496859616)
The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever (Basic Books 2004)
Why Societies Need Dissent, (Harvard University Press 2003).
Animal Rights: Current Controversies and New Directions edited with Martha Nussbaum, (Oxford University Press 2004)
Risk and Reason, (Cambridge University Press 2002) (Trad. esp.: Riesgo y razón, Buenos Aires/Madrid, Katz editores S.A, 2006, ISBN 8460983501)
The Cost-Benefit State, (American Bar Association 2002)
Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide with Reid Hastie, John Payne and David Schkade, (University of Chicago Press 2002)
Republic.com, (Princeton University Press 2002)
Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy with Stephen Breyer, Richard B. Stewart, and Matthew Spitzer, (1999; new edition 2002)
Free Markets and Social Justice, (2002)
Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do (Oxford University Press 2001)
The Vote: Bush, Gore & the Supreme Court with Richard Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 2001)
Constitutional Law 4th ed. with Stone, Seidman, and Tushnet, (2001)
Behavioral Law and Economics, (editor, Cambridge University Press 2000)
One Case At A Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Harvard University Press 1999)
The Cost of Rights with Stephen Holmes, (1999, W.W. Norton paperback 2000)
Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning with Martha Nussbaum, (W.W. Norton 1998)
Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, (Oxford University Press 1996)
Free Markets and Social Justice, (Oxford University Press 1997)
Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, (The Free Press 1993)
The Partial Constitution, (Harvard University Press 1993)
After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State, (Harvard University Press 1990)
Constitutional Law, (Little, Brown & Co. 1st edition 1986; 2d edition 1991; 3d edition 1995)
The Bill of Rights and the Modern State co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 1992)
Feminism and Political Theory, (editor, University of Chicago Press 1990)

See also
List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates
Choice architecture
List of U.S. executive branch 'czars'

References
↑ "Sunstein to join Harvard Law School faculty"
↑ 2.0 2.1 HLS: News: Sunstein to join Harvard Law School faculty
↑ "Obama's Regulatory Czar Likely to Set a New Tone"
↑ "Reinvigorating Protection of Health, Safety, and the Environment: The Choices Facing Cass Sunstein"
↑ "Wonk Room: How Anti-Regulation Is Obama's New Regulatory Czar?"
↑ Andrew Sparrow (2008-08-22). "Speak 'Nudge': The 10 key phrases from David Cameron's favourite book". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/aug/22/davidcameron.conservatives. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
↑ Carol Lewis (2009-07-22). "Why Barack Obama and David Cameron are keen to 'nudge' you". London: The Times. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/career_and_jobs/article4330267.ece. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
↑ James Forsyth (2009-07-16). "Nudge, nudge: meet the Cameroons’ new guru". The Spectator. http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/...new-guru.thtml. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/839676/nudge-nudge-meet-the-cameroons-new-guru.thtml.) Retrieved 2009-09-09.
↑ Lakhani, Nina (December 7, 2008). "Unhealthy lifestyles here to stay, in spite of costly campaigns". The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...s-1055693.html. (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/unhealthy-lifestyles-here-to-stay-in-spite-of-costly-campaigns-1055693.html.) Retrieved April 28, 2010.
↑ http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-next-justice?page=0,3
↑ http://theamericanscene.com/2007/11/14/sunstein-on-the-second-amendment
↑ http://aei-brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=922
↑ http://www.salon.com
↑ Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. 119e
↑ 15.0 15.1 Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. 119
↑ Cass Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p. xii
↑ Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. xi
↑ Facing Animals May 9, 2007 speech at Harvard from Google video
↑ http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/157.crs_.animals.pdf, Accessed July 22, 2009
↑ 20.0 20.1 http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/celebrate.html, Accessed July 23, 2009
↑ Thaler, Richard H.; Sunstein, Cass R. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Chapter 15: Privatizing Marriage: Caravan Books. pp. 215–228. ISBN 978-0-300-12223-7.
↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
↑ http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/
↑ http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/18/stealth-propaganda/?test=latestnews
↑ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html
↑ .http://books.google.com/books?id=m_mVWRPShyYC&pg=PR15&dq=cass+%22lisa+ruddick%22&hl=lt&sig=3rj5-V8-vIkWzjHp0FBqDgRchmY#PPR15,M1
↑ .http://english.uchicago.edu/graduate/british/Faculty/ruddick.htm
↑ http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523920
↑ Kantor, Jodi (July 30, 2008). "Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/pol...prod=permalink. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?ex=1375156800&en=337ecbaa93d25b8c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.) Retrieved 2008-10-27.
↑ http://abovethelaw.com/2008/07/cass_sunstein_samantha_power_wedding.php
↑ http://www.law.uchicago.edu/sunstein-media.html

External links
White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs biography
CPAT Articles
Sunstein's articles for The New Republic
Experts Guide profile at The University of Chicago
Faculty profile at The University of Chicago Law School
Cass Sunstein discusses Why Societies Need Dissent, at the Carnegie Council
Sunstein blogging at Balkinization
Sunstein blogging at the Oxford University Press blog
Sunstein on wikipedia
Podcast featuring Sunstein Sunstein discusses Infotopia on EconTalk
Nudge web page
Nudge blog
Video interview, September 2004 The Chicago Judges Project,
Video interview, December 2004 The Greatest Speech of the Century: FDR's Second Bill of Rights
Video Interview/Discussion from June 2008 with Eugene Volokh on Bloggingheads.tv
Video debate with Sunstein and Henry Farrell on Bloggingheads.tv
"Catching up with Cass" interview in the Harvard Law Record
Report on Sunstein's Harvard Law chair lecture reported in the Harvard Law Record
Green nudges: An interview with Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein interview on Grist.org
Sunstein author page and article archive fromThe New York Review of Books
Retrieved from "http://mediawikifr.dp.teoma.com/wiki/Cass_Sunstein"
Categories: NPOV disputes from July 2009 | Articles with invalid date parameter in template | Articles needing additional references from October 2009 | All articles needing additional references | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from July 2008 | Articles with unsourced statements from January 2010 | 1954 births | American bloggers | American Jewish people | American legal academics | American legal writers | American political writers | Contributors to Bloggingheads.tv | Harvard Law School alumni | Harvard Law School faculty | Harvard Lampoon members | Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States | Living people | University of Chicago faculty | Scholars of constitutional law
The content on this page originates from Wikipedia and is licensed under the GNU Free Document License or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. </div></div>


Neither Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Palin, Reagan, Bush one or two, or any of the Republican supreme court Justices, have the broad intellectual knowledge and experience and education of this man.

Oh, and BTW, did you finish grade school? Just thought I'd ask....

G.

LWW
05-11-2010, 07:44 AM
My you are getting desperate aren't you.

I notice that you:

1 - Never disputed his statement.

2 - Never disagreed with the idea that dearest leader should be the ultimate and final word on law.

Quite revealing.

But ... not surprising.

You may now return to your belief in your infallible messiah.

The rest of us have the remnants of a nation to attempt repairs on.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My you are getting desperate aren't you.

I notice that you:

1 - Never disputed his statement.

2 - Never disagreed with the idea that dearest leader should be the ultimate and final word on law.

Quite revealing.

But ... not surprising.

You may now return to your belief in your infallible messiah.

The rest of us have the remnants of a nation to attempt repairs on.

LWW </div></div>

I didn't have to dispute it, because you distorted it's meaning in the first place, but then, you aren't exactly reading comprehensive.

pooltchr
05-11-2010, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I didn't have to dispute it, because you distorted it's meaning in the first place, but then, you aren't exactly reading comprehensive. </div></div>

So you think the president has the final word on the meaning of federal law? At least, when your guy is in office. Had anyone made this statement when Bush was in office, you would have gone through the roof! Your partisanship is overwhelming.

Oh yeah...is that a new term you have coined...reading comprehensive?????????

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I didn't have to dispute it, because you distorted it's meaning in the first place, but then, you aren't exactly reading comprehensive. </div></div>

So you think the president has the final word on the meaning of federal law? At least, when your guy is in office. Had anyone made this statement when Bush was in office, you would have gone through the roof! Your partisanship is overwhelming.

Oh yeah...is that a new term you have coined...reading comprehensive?????????

Steve </div></div>

Like your friend, you're taking part of a statement out of a much longer paper, completely out of context....

G.

pooltchr
05-11-2010, 09:46 AM
So, do you think the president is the final word on the meaning of federal law, or not.

It's a simple question... Yes or no?

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, do you think the president is the final word on the meaning of federal law, or not.

It's a simple question... Yes or no?

Steve </div></div>

Only when he is a Republican. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My you are getting desperate aren't you.

I notice that you:

1 - Never disputed his statement.

2 - Never disagreed with the idea that dearest leader should be the ultimate and final word on law.

Quite revealing.

But ... not surprising.

You may now return to your belief in your infallible messiah.

The rest of us have the remnants of a nation to attempt repairs on.

LWW </div></div>

I didn't have to dispute it, because you distorted it's meaning in the first place, but then, you aren't exactly reading comprehensive. </div></div>

Then you should have no problem showing how I distorted it and what it actually meant.

LWW

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I didn't have to dispute it, because you distorted it's meaning in the first place, but then, you aren't exactly reading comprehensive. </div></div>

So you think the president has the final word on the meaning of federal law? At least, when your guy is in office. Had anyone made this statement when Bush was in office, you would have gone through the roof! Your partisanship is overwhelming.

Oh yeah...is that a new term you have coined...reading comprehensive?????????

Steve </div></div>

Like your friend, you're taking part of a statement out of a much longer paper, completely out of context....

G. </div></div>

Then, please, put it in the proper context.

Your "ANSWER" so far is the typical doublethink reply ... "It says what it says and means what it means, but it doesn't mean what it says or say what it means."

LWW

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, do you think the president is the final word on the meaning of federal law, or not.

It's a simple question... Yes or no?

Steve </div></div>

Only when he is a Republican. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G. </div></div>

That was just precious ... I don't care who the POTUS is, I don't like that line of thinking.

Besides that, reality ... again ... betrays you. Bush had a higher percentage of vetoes trumped after the demokooks took congress than any POTUS in history.

Truth vs truthiness.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 10:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, do you think the president is the final word on the meaning of federal law, or not.

It's a simple question... Yes or no?

Steve </div></div>

Only when he is a Republican. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G. </div></div>

That was just precious ... I don't care who the POTUS is, I don't like that line of thinking.

LWW </div></div>

Yeah, Bush and Cheney didn't like it either when the Supreme Court ruled against their unconstitutional acivities three times.

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, do you think the president is the final word on the meaning of federal law, or not.

It's a simple question... Yes or no?

Steve </div></div>

Only when he is a Republican. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G. </div></div>

That was just precious ... I don't care who the POTUS is, I don't like that line of thinking.

LWW </div></div>

Yeah, Bush and Cheney didn't like it either when the Supreme Court ruled against their unconstitutional acivities three times.

</div></div>

Thank you.

Sunstein seems to be of the opinion ... still waiting for you to place the comment in the proper "CONTEXT" ... that the courts should not have final say over the word of the regime in power.

Steve asked you several times, and I will also, do you believe the courts should be able to trump the will of Barack Hussein Obama Junior?

Acceptable answers would be "YES" or "NO" ... thanks in advance for your cordial reply.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, do you think the president is the final word on the meaning of federal law, or not.

It's a simple question... Yes or no?

Steve </div></div>

Only when he is a Republican. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G. </div></div>

That was just precious ... I don't care who the POTUS is, I don't like that line of thinking.

LWW </div></div>

Yeah, Bush and Cheney didn't like it either when the Supreme Court ruled against their unconstitutional acivities three times.

</div></div>

Thank you.

Sunstein seems to be of the opinion ... still waiting for you to place the comment in the proper "CONTEXT" ... that the courts should not have final say over the word of the regime in power.

Steve asked you several times, and I will also, do you believe the courts should be able to trump the will of Barack Hussein Obama Junior?

Acceptable answers would be "TES" or "NO" ... thanks in advance for your cordial reply.

LWW </div></div>

You'll get an answer to any of your questions as soon as you admit what you created and posted on the internet, a grave site, with the tombstone, with your often used alias for my name, right on the front of it, posted as the deceased.

G.

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:41 AM
You answered, whether you know it or not.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You answered, whether you know it or not.

LWW </div></div>

I'd say it was the other way around.

LWW
05-11-2010, 10:55 AM
Well, in a roundabout way I suppose that's true.

I don't think anyone had any real doubt that you are a total statist who wishes the party to control all things.

LWW

pooltchr
05-11-2010, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, in a roundabout way I suppose that's true.

I don't think anyone had any real doubt that you are a total statist who wishes the party to control all things.

LWW </div></div>

Partially true. Only when it is her party, should they have total control. If the opposition party is in control, every step possible should be taken to prevent them from doing anything.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, in a roundabout way I suppose that's true.

I don't think anyone had any real doubt that you are a total statist who wishes the party to control all things.

LWW </div></div>

Partially true. Only when it is her party, should they have total control. If the opposition party is in control, every step possible should be taken to prevent them from doing anything.

Steve </div></div>

Good description of Republicans, Steve! Congrats!

And then your obvious partisanship while the Bush spending spree was going on, "The Debts don't matter...."

which proves that you accuse others of the very same thing that you yourself are known for, as does LWW...

Two little peas in a pod. Bet you lived closer, so you could , ah hem, hook up? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

G.

LWW
05-11-2010, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And then your obvious partisanship while the Bush spending spree was going on, "The Debts don't matter...."

which proves that you accuse others of the very same thing that you yourself are known for, as does LWW...

Two little peas in a pod. Bet you lived closer, so you could , ah hem, hook up? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

G. </div></div>

Please cease and desist from the statements which have zero basis in fact.

I don't remember Steve ever supporting the Bush spending binges, and I know I didn't.

If you could find quotes to support these baseless charges I'm sure you would have posted them by now ... yet you haven't.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-11-2010, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And then your obvious partisanship while the Bush spending spree was going on, "The Debts don't matter...."

which proves that you accuse others of the very same thing that you yourself are known for, as does LWW...

Two little peas in a pod. Bet you lived closer, so you could , ah hem, hook up? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

G. </div></div>

Please cease and desist from the statements which have zero basis in fact.

I don't remember Steve ever supporting the Bush spending binges, and I know I didn't.

If you could find quotes to support these baseless charges I'm sure you would have posted them by now ... yet you haven't.

LWW </div></div>

Just do a search, and you'll find them. STeve wrote the debts didn't matter while Bush was in office, in a discussion about the economy. Now, didn't you Stevie?

G.

pooltchr
05-11-2010, 11:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ Now, didn't you Stevie?

G. </div></div>

OMG!!!! You posted my secret private, never before posted in public, personal name!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me call my lawyer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve

LWW
05-11-2010, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just do a search, and you'll find them. STeve wrote the debts didn't matter while Bush was in office, in a discussion about the economy. Now, didn't you Stevie?

G. </div></div>

You made the claim, it's your obligation to back it up and I have no commensurate obligation to accept your word as the bottom line.

FWIW, to me ... your word adds negative value to any claim.

LWW