Looking Out for the Rights of all Species
by BradfordHarvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein has been confirmed Director to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by a vote of 57-40 in the Senate. Sunstein has been controversial based on his views that the internet should be regulated according to some fairness doctrine and that animals should enjoy the right to sue humans. Undoubtedly Cass has somehow been the victim of wing nuts. I actually have some sympathy for tort reform and have come across a test case which could serve as a legal precedent template in this brave new world.
The incident in question took place in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But although outside the long arm of U.S. law one could imagine parallel circumstances and Cass taking an interest in the legal tort rights of the animal. First the incident. A hippopotamus has been accused on killing a soldier (shudder). But this might have been a rogue soldier nabbed by said hippo in the act of illegally fishing. In other words this soldier likely displayed complete contempt not just for the law but for the environment as well. A militarist, anti-environmental and a violator of human law. Some might say this guy had it coming when the hippo ate him for lunch.
We won't go quite that far but there are some resourceful U.S. lawyers who would make a self-defense case for John Doe Hippo and sue detractors for slander. Imagine if this had been Florida and the hippo was a gator. A protester leaves a town hall meeting, strolls past a canal and carelessly tosses a candy wrapper into a canal. An enraged gator seeing no candy inside confronts the lawbreaking wing nut and hauls him into the canal. A body is found the next day and the gator is accused.
Sounds like species discrimination to me. You know how those gators are. Who are you humans to think you have special rights. After all we're part of one big happy family. And as an animal lover I feel better knowing the gator has a friend in high places looking out for his right to seek redress in a civil court.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Bradford,
I know that you get offended when I point out your tendency to uncritically repeat right-wing talking points. Yet there is no other way to describe what you wrote other than hyperbolic right-wing nuttery.
Google is a wonderful search engine. It would take you all of 5 minutes to check where Sunstein stands on these issues.
According to Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank),
Animal rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#Animal_rights
Comment by olegt — September 13, 2009 @ 8:02 am
September 13th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Olegt, your analyses are terribly superficial. Of course he is moderating his past statements about issues. He wants to wield power. It is as if we are supposed to take at face value what the czars say five minutes ago and forget prior history. That strategy is very transparent and was not tolerated when Bush nominees were the issue. When that was the case memories were long and past statements were set in stone.
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 8:30 am
September 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Yes, Bradford, my analysis was superficial: I only spent a few minutes studying the question. Yours, on the other hand, did not even scratch the surface. Your latest comment contains just lame excuses for your original post. Nothing to back up any of your points.
Not that I am surprised by that.
Comment by olegt — September 13, 2009 @ 9:28 am
September 13th, 2009 at 9:32 am
So your claim is that the charges against Substein were invented. The relevant animal quote is in a book and Google has it at their site. Not surprisingly the passage is ommitted. The book is Animal rights: current debates and New Directions.
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 9:32 am
September 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
According to olegt's link to Wikipedia:
To me, that seems like an excellent suggestion by Sunstein. I'm very surprised it isn't possible at the moment to sue – whether technically on behalf of the animal or not – for animal cruelty under the circumstances described. I'm curious to hear some reasoned arguments opposing Sunstein's suggestion. Bradford?
Comment by Jure — September 13, 2009 @ 9:46 am
September 13th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Bradford,
I don't think a right to sue makes animals the equals of humans. (Hint: a corporation has the right to sue, but it does not have the right to pursuit happiness.)
Comment by olegt — September 13, 2009 @ 10:21 am
September 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
First, let me note I love animals and support strict legal sanctions against those who treat them cruelly. That legal remedy should come from the prosecutor's office. That is a prosecutorial role. It can include civil penalties but again let those whose expertise and duty lies in this area initiate the legal remedies. The problem with giving animals the right to sue is that it allows people with no legal standing in the issue to initiate a tort claim.
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 10:39 am
September 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Bad analogy. Corporations are composed of people who can understand legal issues and act on matters which directly concern them. Animals of course do not do the suing. They do not decide what to do with any judgements on their behalf. People sue on their behalf even though they were not a party to the subject matter over which the tort claim was brought. Tort vigilantiism
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 10:45 am
September 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Bradford,
I don't think your objection makes sense. Like animals, minor children and the mentally disabled do not comprehend the subject of law, so a third party can sue on their behalf even though the third party itself was not harmed.
Comment by olegt — September 13, 2009 @ 11:41 am
September 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
That third party should be a governmental agency entrusted with the care and training for this type of mission. It ought not be private citizen Jane Doe who never liked that dog owner anyway and hasn't a clue as to how the actual pertinent laws read.
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 11:45 am
September 13th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Some more nuggets from Sunstein.
"We ought to ban hunting"
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University
"[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. "
- Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, "Radicals in Robes"
"Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"
- 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions
"[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
"[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.
"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).
Just another mainstream advisor to the current administrtatiuon
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — September 13, 2009 @ 11:50 am
September 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
There's no need for civil suits. In all but four states in the USA, animal cruelty is a felony criminal offense.
http://www.americanhumane.org/advocacy/animal-protection/animal-cruelty-summary.html
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 13, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Before it's all over with, "animal rights" nutjobs will probably insist on a world court were gazelles can sue lions for eating their relatives.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 13, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Replace "animals" with "unborn human babies" and I'm all for it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 13, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Heh, I'd like to see Sunstein explain all of that to a lion in the African bush.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 13, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
kornbelt:
This man wants to control the internet. BTW ever notice that all the animal rights people are not pro choice when it comes to whales and smelts but are pro choice when it comes to the unborn?
We live in strange times.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — September 13, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Olegt, Jure, pay attention. What would be your response to PETA suiing research scientists for animal cruelty?
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Bradford,
You're the one not paying attention. PETA is already suing one organization for cruelty to animals.
Comment by olegt — September 13, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
When in the world will people learn to judge politicians by what they do rather than what they say? I mean, good Lord, I can google Van Jones and quote him saying he has never ever supported the 9/11 truthers even though he signed his name to their petition! I can even google Larry Craig saying he is not gay, and I can google John Edwards saying that the baby cannot possibly be his, and I can google Bill Clinton saying that he never ever had sex with that woman, I can google Bush Sr. pledging that he will not raise taxes and I can google Barack Obama pledging that he will not allow lobbyists into his administration.
Olegt, is your standard of evidence really whether someone made a statement that can be googled? Funny how skepticism can be such a selective tool. (Selective skepticism! Hilarious!)
Can you all really be that naive when it comes to power-maddened greedy scumbag politicans? If so, then the corporate oligarchy is here to stay, I'm afraid.
Comment by chunkdz — September 13, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
chunkdz wrote:
chunkdz,
Cass Sunstein is not —and never has been—a politician. If you had a modicum of curiosity you would quickly find this snippet of information on Wikipedia:
You got to try harder.
Comment by olegt — September 13, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Incidentally, here's PETA's March Mad Scientists.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Olegt, Sunstein has never been elected to office but has been appointed to powerful posts where he is able to enact important public policies within the executive branch. Even if he does not meet the technical definition of a politician, he nevertheless is able to effect political goals. We are right to judge him by more than what he has said within the last 8 or 9 months.
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Allright, smartass. I'll try harder. In fact, I'll use the same source that you did: Wikipedia.
How much influence does Sunstein's post have? According to the Wall Street Journal:
Even if Cass Sunstein WERE NOT a politician [and you can no longer claim ignorance of this fact], it would not excuse your naive trust in a googled piece of puked up pablum intended to placate those who are too lazy to actually investigate a politician's real motives.
Comment by chunkdz — September 13, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Olegt:
You evaded the question. Should private citizens have the right to sue science researchers for cruelty on behalf of animals?
Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
[...] claims have been questioned by the NHS Confederation and the Royal College of Nursing in Wales. Looking Out for the Rights of all Species – 09/13/2009 Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein has been confirmed Director to the White [...]
Pingback by Posts about discrimination as of September 14, 2009 | Discrimination Law News — September 14, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Good try, chunk. You're almost there.
Sunstein a political appointee, not a politician. He is a bureaucrat in the government. He heads OIRA, an office within OMB, which is itself an office within the Executive Office of the President. OIRA is a watchdog overseeing how government decisions are implemented. It does not propose new policies.
But maybe I am missing something and you can tell me how Sunstein, in his role as the head of OIRA, is, has been, or will be "involved in influencing public decision making." A one-paragraph summary will do.
Comment by olegt — September 14, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Told you so.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 14, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Lol! Well, you've kind of answered it yourself olegt. You rightly refer to Sunstein as a "watchdog" at the gates of regulation. But then you act totally oblivious as to how a watchdog could possibly have any influence whatsoever on who gets through the gate! You are naive in Pollyannaish proportions.
What do you think a watchdog is, olegt, if not the one who decides who gets through the gate? If the watchdog likes you, he will let you through. If the watchdog doesn't know you, you will not pass through. But…if you throw the watchdog a big juicy steak, he might just let you through the gate.
Sunstein has the power to hopelessly mire down some agencies, and he can give a free pass to others, or he can interpret regulatory law in a way that is favorable to the administration of his Chicago comrade Obama. I'd look for Sunstein to influence by nudging, rather than with an iron fist. We'll just have to wait and see.
If you are still confused as to whether or not Sunstein has any influence in Washington, you might begin by wondering why the lefties complained so much about the influence of George Bush's regulatory czars. According to some left wingers Susan Dudley was responsible for eviscerating environmental regulation. Wow. Not bad for an office with absolutely no influence in Washington!
http://www.citizen.org/documents/dudleyreport.pdf
http://www.cprblog.org/printPage.cfm?idBlog=5D5DA84D-1E0B-E803-CA9C935116A0E1AD
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/003955.html
There's that fascinating phenomenon of selective skepticism again, right olegt? Funny how when it's a partisan enemy like Dudley it merits such teeth gnashing but when it's a partisan friend like Sunstein there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Fascinating.
But of course, you still haven't addressed the salient point of why you blindly accept Sunstein's statement to the press. I'd also like to see you answer Bradford's question too. Do you care to ever actually answer a question? Or do you just wish to keep flaunting your naivete as if it's something to be proud of?
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Just a brief addendum to chunkdz's well reasoned comment- the power to regulate is the ultimate power government yields. It enables the regulator to control the behavior of those regulated. Expanding control is at the heart of what is going on in Washington.
Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Yeah, I concede that chunk has a point: a political appointee is half politician and half bureaucrat, closer to the former, rather than the latter.
On the "salient" point, we have discussed Sunstein's book and a video interview among other things, so I am not just taking his statement to the press as the one and only way to gauge his views.
Comment by olegt — September 14, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
The New York Times agrees with you, Bradford. Listen to what they said about the office back in 2001 after Bush's appointment of Graham.
But don't worry, Bradford. Sunstein is on the record as saying he supports complete impartiality. I googled it. And I'm sure he will not allow his anti-gun, pro-animal rights philosophy to influence his completely impartial reading of the law and the constitution.
And I'm cooking moonbeams and rainbow stew for dinner.
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
You got it right, chunk. I haven't thought about the issue (never concerned me), so I have nothing to tell Bradford.
Comment by olegt — September 14, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Unlike biologists you do not need living organisms for experimental purposes so you can afford not having to ponder the question. Still the point illustrates the limited vision of the would be gods who govern us. They are unable to anticipate the fallout from some of their ill-conceived ideas. And we, the common mass of citizenry, are left to pick up the pieces when politicians go awry as happened with the great bailout of 08.
Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Bradford,
You've never heard the horrible, horrible things physicists do to cats in boxes.
…
Comment by nullasalus — September 14, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Let's review.
Bradford posts about Sunstein's views on animal legal rights.
Olegt calls Bradford's post "hyperbolic right-wing nuttery".
Olegt inexplicably links to an article which confirms Bradford's assessment of Sunstein.
Olegt says he hasn't thought about the issue and has nothing to say.
These are not rational people we are dealing folks. Must always keep this in mind.
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
True, but Olegt might claim he knows nothing about what occurs in that darkened box.
Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
And did you know that, in addition to conducting thought experiments on cats Schroedinger lived with two women? Dangerous librul, that.
Chunk, our wrangling over whether Sunstein is a politician sheds no light on whether Bradford's OP had valid points. His depiction of Sunstein's views was off the mark both on the fairness doctrine and animals.
Comment by olegt — September 14, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Like a true politician Sunstein has watered down his prior statements to make his views more politically palatable and coincidentally to afford his defenders some cover.
Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
You don't think Sunstein's views may have evolved with time, Bradford? Do you have evidence that they changed suddenly, around the time of nomination?
Comment by olegt — September 14, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
If only there were some way to settle this argument over whether it is appropriate for Obama to choose Sunstein as an appointee. Some event, in which all adult American citizens could express their preference as to who they would like to appoint the next head of the OIRA. We could call it a presidential election!
And then, if the head of OIRA let out some regulations saying dogs could sue for canned dog food instead of dry, we could have another election, and replace this so-called president. I think this crazy idea might work!
No, but then we'd need some way to get the results of the election out to the voters, but there is no trustworthy source for such news, since the media all have their liberal bias.
Comment by congregate — September 14, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
My reading of Sunstien leads me to think he's changed his tune on the internet. Not from a change of ideology, but a realization that it would be too difficult to carry out.
As for animal rights, he doesn't appear to have changed his opinion much but also realizes the inherent difficulty of regulating it.
His interviews tend to be more pragmatic and guarded. For a look into the man's soul, look at what he's written. Like my daddy used to say, what's down in the well comes up in the bucket.
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
In other words, Obama won the election. Let him appoint who he wants to bureaucratic/political positions that the next president can replace. If Sunstein actually tries to do something crazy, then make a fuss, but it's counterproductive to obstruct or complain about these sorts of appointments.
Comment by congregate — September 14, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Tell it to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Exactly. What hypocrisy. As if leftists withheld criticism of political opponents until they were given a chance to perform in office.
Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Gentlemen:
My post was not an example of hypocrisy. Your posts are examples of shooting your mouths off based on partisan sour grapes without regard for the facts of the situation. Or would it be more charitable to suggest that you don't know that U.S. Supreme Court Justices have lifetime tenure?
Please note the following sentence from my three sentence post (It was three sentences long! You don't have the attention span to read and understand three sentences without going off on a partisan accusation of hypocrisy?):
Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were not nominated for bureaucratic/political positions that the next president could replace.
Cass Sunstein was nominated for a posiiton that the next president could replace.
Can you understand why that makes a difference?
Comment by congregate — September 15, 2009 @ 10:56 am
September 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Charitable. Naw. But since you left any good sense you posses in ideological left field I'll remind you that it was you who wrote that:
Although judges are appointed to life terms they can be removed from office for "crazy" actions. But it is hypocrisy to pretend that Bush and Reagan nominees were treated with anything less than overt hostility. All of a sudden lefties have become aficionados of Miss Manners. After eight years of hatred and bile it is late in the game for that "transformation."
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2009 @ 11:10 am
September 15th, 2009 at 11:27 am
What does this have to do with his fitness for that position?
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2009 @ 11:27 am
September 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am
[loudspeaker]
If anyone is having any technical issues please e-mail me at nanosoliton at yahoo dot com. That is all.
[/loudspeaker]
Comment by Guts — September 15, 2009 @ 11:42 am
September 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I wonder if Sunstein thinks it's immoral to beat puppies simply from enjoying the sense of power.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 16, 2009 @ 11:29 am
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I understand that you are essentially suggesting that the senate should not confirm the appointment of Cass Sunstein. [Or that they should confirm him without "complaining" or "obstructing" Lol!] How did you put it?
and
Fortunately, our government disagrees. Vigorous debate is still a part of senate confirmation even if it apparently bothers you.
Comment by chunkdz — September 22, 2009 @ 3:32 pm