home

Cass Sunstein Roughed Up By GOP, Fox

I find it amusing and ironic that the great "centrist" law professor Cass Sunstein is getting roughed up by Fox for advocating for animal rights.

His nomination is being held up by Sen. Saxby Chambliss. I hope Sunstein is not expecting us "wild eyed Lefties" to go to bat for him. I sure won't.

Speaking for me only

< Sully's Legacy On Health Care Reform | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just for the record... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by byteb on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:40:24 PM EST
    I loathe Saxby Chambliss.

    Sunstein Roughed Up By GOP (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by joze46 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:51:02 PM EST
    Cass Sunstein Roughed Up By GOP, Fox

    It's an interesting topic because I follow much your writing. I don't know much about Sunstein however there must be a dark shadow with this guy, somewhere, that is in conflict with your philosophy of political science. Sunstein is a friend of Obama from the University Of Chicago Law School. I am not sure if that is good or bad, but the Republicans will make it look ugly.  

    For me I have a thing about FOX News and the other cable networks, across the spectrum of the cable Journalist. Especially on this network, Fox, they are an example of the most disgusting group of educated professionals that could be assembled with claim and dedication to be great Americans. One of the funniest things one could view is Karol Rove being interviewed by Sean Hannity and Karol says "Thanks for having me". I really chuckle just to hear that. Karol is a demon.

    I am reading about this agency Sunsein is supposed to head.

    The "Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs", for me basically it appears this agency reduces down to simple quality control which most successful business does practice. Obviously it was drafted and written way before the Clinton administration, but this one looks like it was signed by Bill Clinton. What jumps out here is that during the Clinton administration regulations dropped from 3000 to like 500 reviews. This agency goes back to the Carter administration and even Ronald Reagan and Bush's dad fiddled with this. Ronald obviously had scandals up the wazoo even though most of the talent broke bad into corruption and got pardoned.  

    It's interesting to note too that George Bush signed off on a 2007 version

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866/eo12866_amended_01-2007.pdf

    My take on this is an in depth legal approach is about to happen with the records of this agency. Which could connect a lot of robust legal actions that took place during the last eight years, considering limitation statues, of the Bush administration? It is sort of impressive using the law to invoke a way to sift through the quality control that should be an on going process. In both quantitative and qualitative matters. The Republican Party that has been in control has another monumental conflict of policy in that they parade around arguing that America should be run like a business yet under Bush and Clinton avoided those important details of oversight to prevent abuse.

    Now this guy Saxby Chambliss, of Georgia, One Senator among many Southern Senators that are disgusting and don't belong in the public arena yet greater America has to put up with idiots like him. Intellectuals like Saxby show us all the flavor of the intelligence America has to deal with it the very reason why we are where we are. The ideal that prisoners of war will be released into society as a bad thing by presentation of Saxby is the core reason for me to feel diminished and angry. What if these people are innocent as Americans think about any and all persons, Americans in other countries, which are abducted by other governments using the same rules we use?

    This is a clip of a presentation which I think is an out right lie.

    http://src.senate.gov/public/_files/television/chamblissfloorB6_10_09.ram

    As much as I dislike (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by mg7505 on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    Sunstein, this fracas makes him appear WAY further to the Left than he actually is. And that is not OK.

    animal rights (none / 0) (#1)
    by LizDexic on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    Why do you hate animals?

    I like animals (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    I do not like Cass Sunstein.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#22)
    by me only on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 07:01:45 AM EST
    Check the archives (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    Or google.

    You ask me a lot of why? question in my posts.

    I've been a blogger since 2003.

    I do not have the time to get all new readers up to speed.

    I mean no disrespect but please, try the archives sometime.

    Parent

    You don't agree with Cass (none / 0) (#27)
    by me only on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    in the archives.  Although there really isn't much in the archives here about Sunstein.  Most of your commentary is about his agreeing with Bush's executive power arguments and you vehemently disagreeing with that position.

    You wrote that you don't like the man.  You and I don't agree on many things.  I wouldn't remark that I don't like you.  Heck, my wife and I disagree on many things.  I still like her.

    Let me compare this to our other "conversation".  You disagree with Sullivan.  Am I supposed to infer that means that you don't like Sullivan?  (If I were guessing, I would say that you write about Sullivan so much for the opposite reason, because you do like him.)

    Parent

    Oh sheesh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    I don't know any of these people personally. How could I like or dislike them personally?

    That's like asking me if I liked Michael Jackson. Never knew the man.

    Are you really going to be this silly?

    Let me know so I can ignore you from now on.

    Parent

    It's not the animals that are the problem (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:16:48 PM EST
    it's their AR activists . . .

    just sayin'  ;)

    Parent

    Aww, poor Cass (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:19:15 PM EST
    On the topic of animal rights. . .

    I'm sure if I gave the topic any thought I would come to a pretty radical conclusion. But I like turkey sandwiches, eggs, and steak a lot, so I don't think about it.

    And if you gave it even more thought (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:30:32 PM EST
    you just might find yourself in the Animal Welfare camp  ;)

    You can treat animals humanely and eat your turkey too! I seriously don't know what my cats would do without that humanely raised pastured chicken thawing on the counter for them, eat soy? Not on my watch! {grin}

    Parent

    I'm not sure I believe that (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:42:38 PM EST
    On what basis do we give ourselves the right to kill animals for food?  

    I don't really think we have a good one. But I'm going to continue to do it because I enjoy it. So I'm a bit of an intellectual coward here.

    Parent

    But it's way more than about killing (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    animals for food (AR, not eating them). Although, there is that history there also and a lot to consider in that area. You can be veg/vegan and not be in the AR camp for a whole host of reasons :)

    Parent
    We're omnivores n/t (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:16:47 PM EST
    Joking (none / 0) (#19)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:14:56 AM EST
    right?

    I seriously don't know what my cats would do without that humanely raised pastured chicken thawing on the counter for them


    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 04:38:56 AM EST
    speechless, actually.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 05:55:07 PM EST
    I've been raw feeding (and some cooked for felines, more for canine) my pets for years. I do it for their health etc, but with all the problems with commercial pet food these past couple years, it's also for safety now. Sure, it may sound like it costs more, but when you factor in the high cost of decent commercial food, not that much more. And having five cats/1 dog go into acute kidney failure because of toxic food. (2 major brands currently are causing problems) . . very expensive, if they happen to live that is. I switched them to pastured meats when I found a source that had variety and only did meats for pets (keeps costs down). Nothing better than meat, bones and organs, as nature intended ;) Cats don't eat much as you feed based on body weight.

    Plus, I pretty much live a processed free life,  so it's really not a big deal for me.

    Parent

    The trick there is... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    not to think andgarden, but to simply look around.  Every living thing feeds off other living things...always have, always will.

    It's bloody and cruel and a beautiful miracle all at the same time.

    Parent

    I saw that yesterday and laughed. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    The prospect of "a farmer having to defend himself in court against a lawsuit filed on behalf of his chickens or pigs" sounds like a spec story for a sequel to Babe.

    Sadly, it's not far off from what some want (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:42:15 PM EST
    I think this says it better:

    "Laws designed to protect animals against cruelty and abuse should be amended or interpreted to give a private cause of action against those who violate them, so as to allow private people to supplement the efforts of public prosecutors."

    And if you don't think that people aren't out there working towards this . . . and then there's that whole area as to what "defines" cruelty and abuse. Oy. AR makes my head hurt . . .

    Parent

    I read (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:47:01 PM EST
    on HuffPo when googling for this that there are tons of posts that arent filled because of holds. How is Cass Sunstein qualified to run a regulatory department anyway?

    I was wondering that also this AM (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    when I first heard about this.

    Parent
    I'd much rather Cass Sunstein run a (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:28:55 PM EST
    regulatory dept. than sit on a federal court of appeals and/or SCOTUS.  

    Parent
    That also crossed my mind (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:39:53 PM EST
    but nothing to stop O from that down the road . . .

    Parent
    He's Samantha Power's S.O., that's how (none / 0) (#29)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 05:29:53 PM EST
    But seriously, Sunstein has interesting views on regulatory matters and other schemes of influence.

    Parent
    If Sunstein (none / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:27:07 PM EST
    was on fire, I wouldn't ...

    "Desparately Smearing Sunstein": (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    Now that's what I call a great title.  See link.