Judd Gregg votes "Yes" to Cass Sunstein???

[radioman]

What's up with this? I thought NH had some sense? This Sunstein guy thinks the 2nd amendment is a mistake. Here we go again with Van Jones number two???

 

[ASHDUMP]

#2 commin' up!

 

[strangenh]

I think people need to read more than the attack sheets on Sunstein. Those libertarian constitutional lawyers who actually have read his books - rather than cut sheet summaries - seem to be pretty OK with him. He's no great friend of the 2nd, but if you read all he's written and said on the 2nd, overall today he is to the RIGHT of most of the Obama administration and the 4 dissenting Justices in Heller.

Dave Kopel, for example says Sunstein comes from a "more pro-liberty perspective than anyone else that Obama might nominate to run the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy."

Faint praise, but if you actually haven't read one of his books or articles in full, you might want to take a moment to consider that the above quote comes from one of the most rabid PRO 2nd Amendment lawyers in the USA. Sunstein's really completely off the usual road for this administration - and not farther to the left. Something else entirely - a guy who actually thinks markets work, even if he talks about using them to further a liberal agenda.

 

[MattEvan]

I think people need to read more than the attack sheets on Sunstein. Those libertarian constitutional lawyers who actually have read his books - rather than cut sheet summaries - seem to be pretty OK with him. He's no great friend of the 2nd, but if you read all he's written and said on the 2nd, overall today he is to the RIGHT of most of the Obama administration and the 4 dissenting Justices in Heller.

Dave Kopel, for example says Sunstein comes from a "more pro-liberty perspective than anyone else that Obama might nominate to run the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy."

Faint praise, but if you actually haven't read one of his books or articles in full, you might want to take a moment to consider that the above quote comes from one of the most rabid PRO 2nd Amendment lawyers in the USA. Sunstein's really completely off the usual road for this administration - and not farther to the left. Something else entirely - a guy who actually thinks markets work, even if he talks about using them to further a liberal agenda.

If Mr Sunsstein leans more to the right than most of Obama's administration than I think we are doomed. I will admit that I don't know as much about him as I would like, but some of his views are
1. Animals bringing suit
2. a ban on hunting (for sport and fun)

that would be enough for me to think he's not good for this country!

 

[strangenh]

If Mr Sunsstein leans more to the right than most of Obama's administration than I think we are doomed. I will admit that I don't know as much about him as I would like, but some of his views are
1. Animals bringing suit
2. a ban on hunting (for sport and fun)

that would be enough for me to think he's not good for this country!

You haven't actually read those books/articles either, have you?

The "animals bringing suit" one was among several ideas exploring how to get incompetent government out of things like animal welfare - by creating private causes of action (for private people, not really for animals) if they care so much, rather than making everyone pay for such enforcement. I.e., using the marketplace rather than the government. It was just one of many ideas he explored. Ditto the ban on hunting. If it's so in need of banning, he argued, then the market should be able to determine that.

Dunno what else to say. I am not going to argue for the guy against cartoon versions of his actual articles. I don't even agree with him on most issues, but I also don't think these cheap caricatures help the debate. At all.

 

[MattEvan]

You haven't actually read those books/articles either, have you?

The "animals bringing suit" one was among several ideas exploring how to get incompetent government out of things like animal welfare - by creating private causes of action (for private people, not really for animals) if they care so much, rather than making everyone pay for such enforcement. I.e., using the marketplace rather than the government. It was just one of many ideas he explored. Ditto the ban on hunting. If it's so in need of banning, he argued, then the market should be able to determine that.

Dunno what else to say. I am not going to argue for the guy against cartoon versions of his actual articles. I don't even agree with him on most issues, but I also don't think these cheap caricatures help the debate. At all.

I haven't had the "priveledge" of reading his books/articles therefore I can only give an opinion based on quotes from his books, interviews and or what's reported about him and I haven't seen any cartoons about him.
I just think his intentions are animal friendly rather than human friendly.

 

[strangenh]

I haven't had the "priveledge" of reading his books/articles therefore I can only give an opinion based on quotes from his books, interviews and or what's reported about him and I haven't seen any cartoons about him.
I just think his intentions are animal friendly rather than human friendly.

Well, those attack articles - and there's really only one of them, really - pulling choice quotes out of context are the "cartoon" versions of his actual writings I am talking about.

You can get the privilege of reading his work by actually just reading them.
Many are freely available online. Some of the books are cheap, used. Don't present some notion that it's some kind of ivory tower and you have to have privilege to read his stuff. I think the founders had something to say about an informed electorate. It's real work being a free citizen.

But if slogging through his articles doesn't do it for you, you could at least read the short piece I pointed to above - written by one of the most active pro-2A lawyers in America, a guy whose writing was fundamental to bringing us to Heller. http://davekopel.org/2dAmendment.htm

Don't guess what his intentions are based on reading cut-paste pieces that are there solely as attack soundbites. If you don't have time to read his articles in full, then, OK, but at least read what some of the preeminent pro-liberty lawyers in the USA have to say about him. These are legal eagles who were really down on Obama's Supreme Court nominee list, but they are pretty mellow about Sunstein, even though they know they're not gonna see eye to eye with him. These are serious libertarian, small-government types and include some of the key modern authors who built the foundation that won us the Heller decision.

http://volokh.com/posts/1241375837.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1233197858.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1231526598.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1252441367.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1242143233.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1252425414.shtml

Again, Sunstein's NO libertarian, but he's also no communist, and when you read the quotes in context, he's not even all that much of a wacko (even for a law professor ).

Here's a debate between him an an actual real libertarian constitutional scholar:
http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp

If you really want to get a feel for Sunstein's not-really-typical-of-the-left position, and why hardcore 2nd A. supporters like Kopel think he's actually overall more pro-liberty than almost anyone in this - or the previous - administration, then read the linked debate. On the other side of the debate is Randy Barnett, a hardcore pro-liberty attorney and regular contributor over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Reading their debate, it'll become clear that, while (again) Sunstein's certainly no conservative nor even a libertarian, small or capital "L," he's also no crazed socialist, or even a typical liberal. He's something else, something that might actually be more in "our" court than you'd think.

Heck, he even went from being generally cynical about the reality and chances of the 2nd being seen as an individual right (and let's be real, the NRA was on the same page for a while there), to reading ALL the briefs in Heller and actually changing his mind to declare that he felt Heller was decided correctly. Not that he believes in a strong 2nd Amendment, but that still puts him to the 'right' (on that issue) of this entire administration (minus Salazar), and also to the right of all the liberals on the Supreme Court.

We certainly can't expect this administration to nominate conservatives, however nice that might be, but an idiosyncratic economics-minded guy who's even a little pro-liberty is a positive development, despite what the over-the-top attack pieces say.

 

[radioman]

Read his books I wouldn't use his books to level my table!

I've heard enough out of his very own mouth to know this guy is WAY left and in no way more right that the rest of the Barry administration. This guy hates guns and for any pro second amendment person to support him in any way they need to review the tenants on what they believe.

 

[strangenh]

Read his books I wouldn't use his books to level my table!

I've heard enough out of his very own mouth to know this guy is WAY left and in no way more right that the rest of the Barry administration. This guy hates guns and for any pro second amendment person to support him in any way they need to review the tenants on what they believe.

Yeah, 'cause you know more about the 2nd Amendment than Kopel, Volokh, and about a half dozen other lawyers who helped win Heller.

I understand your point: You don't need any evidence 'cause your mind's made up. I thought liberals were bad. I'm done here.

 

[radioman]

I know who the liberal is.

 

[strangenh]

I know who the liberal is.

Yeah, ok, psychic-powers-man, I am sure you do.

You might want to think about what all the hype over Sunstein is distracting serious political effort from. All this hype over a guy that the very people who helped win Heller don't actually think is so bad, even on the 2nd A.

 

[Migmojo]

Obama wants him, that's all we need to know.