So while you all are discussing health care

... This guy is being tapped to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Not only anti-hunting, anti-gun and actually thinks animals should have the right to sue people... he also has written books that suggest public and private organizations can help people make better choices in their daily lives.

Oh thank god we have Team Harvard to guide us in our decisions since we are so incapable and they know what is best for us common folk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

http://www.wvmetronews.com/outdoors.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=32284

From you're link:

magna cum laude from Harvard Law

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

“Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,”


This is your brain. The original post is your brain on Rush.

Not exactly, taking action on hunting, farming and other forms of "cruelty" is a disregard to a healthy portion of our heritage.

Not to mention the gun reform he would like to see and did you even browse his writings?

Even the portion that you highlighted salts the wound that is the American Judicial system, inviting even more lawsuits with no consequences for those that are frivolous.

I never listen to Rush, I just believe that because you have a simple lifestyle doesnt mean your simple minded and need guidance from academia professionals to "make the right decisions".

"taking action on hunting, farming "

Show me anywhere where he's said anything about hunting or farming. All you have is someone elses spin on what he's actually written and said.

"Even the portion that you highlighted salts the wound that is the American Judicial system, inviting even more lawsuits with no consequences for those that are frivolous."

A) Explain how that invites more lawsuits? You like judges making broad brushstrokes? I thought the right abhored that.

B) Explain frivolous lawsuit. You mean the GOP definition meaning the little people can't sue the big people but the big people can sue the little people?

Ok, the first mistake is confusing my pro gun and pro hunting stance as that of a Republican.

As for farming - his book.
"The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer," in which he said the "law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering."

Having court cases where animals can be represented by lawyers and suits brought against those who are accused of animal cruelty is inviting more lawsuits... as we do not currently have these in our courts. Animal cruelty is against the law, I dont think a salmon that was flossed should be allowed to sue for damages.

When I say frivolous lawsuits I mean exactly that, your analogy is so off base I find it comical. 1- I am not a Republican, although you seem steadfast in portraying me as such. 2- when people bring lawsuits that are obviously seeking a payoff that is frivolous. Some slip on a restroom floor, realize it is a restroom and there is the chance of a slippery condition others see it as a payday and sue the restaurant for negligence. Not all David and Goliath scenarios are as they seem.

Violating fishing and hunting regulations don't bring "lawsuits"...they bring trials, criminal trials...nothing at all the same thing. No one gets sued in a criminal trial, they get tried for crimes, by the State, not by the victim, whether it be a person or a goat.

That should put an end to that line of 'reasoning'.

I would think that preventing unnecessary suffering should be the ultimate aim of any hunter or fisher that harvests animals...shouldn't it be?

Fish on...

Todd

thats how it is now, Sonstein wants animals to be (or have the right to be) represented by an attorney.

I agree.

Not really...in fact, your Wiki link shows that he feels differently than that.

"Sunstein's views on animal rights generated controversy when his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama was blocked by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). 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 the source of animal rights under the law, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grand it legal standing for suit. Instead, Sunstein hypothesizes, animals could be granted "the right to bring suit" while represented by an attorney. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot bring suit 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. However, nowhere in the introduction does Sunstein propose doing so: the discussion on page 11 is merely an exploration of the philosophical dimensions and formal sources of animal rights."

Fish on...

Todd

R.U.F.K.M?
Seriously.
R.U.F.K.M?



I'm very moderate in the scheme of politics.

EXCEPT when it comes to hunting related issues.

If you far out lefty nutjobs can defend this flaming asshole, you are beyond fukking repair.
I'm sorry, that seals the deal.

From ESPN, that far right wing arm of the GOP & Rush Limbaugh...


http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=4451898

Who decides what is unnecessary suffering? Me? You? PETA?

Why... Obama of course Jerry!

Or one of the animal Death Panels...

Frivolous lawsuits has been the mantra of the GOP and big business. Who wouldn't want to be able to operate without impunity? The made famous McDonalds hot coffee in the lap suit is trolled out as an example only they always fail to mention the judge drastically reduced the award. The court worked as it should have. Jury awarded something out of line. Judge brought it in line. IMO McDonalds deserved to lose that suit as they were serving scalding hot coffee to drivers through the drive through window in one of those paper cups before the "sleeve" was in use. There had been numerous complaints and this particular driver was burned in the groin area.

But when the shoe is on the other foot they don't label it frivolous. For instance Mom n pop run a country store. It is called Starbuckers. Here comes the lawsuit from a mega corp. The mega corp knows mom n pop can't afford to fight and will just settle. Frivolous right?

Who decides what is unnecessary suffering? Me? You? PETA?

One alternative is nobody......be as cruel as you want.

It's very telling about Obama's appointees. He must be appointing the right people if all that can be dug up are out of context one liners.

Sure, GWB didnt 'propose' going to war, it was just philosophical exploration, until he did.

I suppose that his book "Nudge" is all hypothetical as well?
Nudge discusses how public and private organizations can help people make better choices in their daily lives.

Point being, if these are the guys feelings on these topics, enough to write them in published books, I don't see where he would be opposed to such actions nor do I want someone that puts these types of "philosophical explorations" on paper to head up the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs... seriously, its not these topics are unrelated to the position.

From where I am sitting, the guy reeks of an elitist sheepherder mantality, but if you guys like him, to each his own.

No I am more than accepting of legitimate claims and just rewards.

Frivolous is a person injuring themselves trying to ride a skateboard, then suing the skateboard manufacture for not warning them of the dangers of riding a skateboard.

Frivolous is claiming that the fender bender you got in caused you months of mental stress and missed work.

Frivolous is throwing every possible claim you can up against the wall assuming that eventually one will stick.

I love the inflection of the mom and pop story but what about the guy selling the knock off Nike shoes, should Nike not police their trademark because he is just a little guy?

Recognizing that lawsuits have become a profession of sorts in this country doesn't mean I support the GOP, it just means I see them on a regular basis.

Ya know the neat thing about the types of frivolous lawsuits that you're describin' Marz?

They don't make it to trial. They're tossed out on their merits during the preliminary hearings.

So you can sleep well tonight... secure in the knowledge that despite Obama's best efforts to control EVERY aspect of our daily lives... our Legal system is still chuggin' along.

TFF...you and your ilk are about as stupid and helpless as they come.

99.9% of the time, when a legislator says "frivilous lawsuit", what they mean is "please shelter my major donors from their own negligence"...

Fish on...

Todd

No, they are not.

I work for a scooter manufacture and suit is brought upon us a couple times a year for exactly those type of things.

Most of the lawyers expect us to settle instead of spending the money on airfare, lawyer fees, hotels, etc. as they make an offer to settle for around what the expense of fighting these would be and albeit much easier to do, I have a boss with a soul that refuses to settle when principals are at stake.

Personal injury suits are rampant in this country due to lawyers that will take cases for no out of pocket and induce a situation that makes it cheaper and easier for the company in question to settle whether they are right or wrong. When it will cost a company thousands to fight, the settlement offers are more convenient.

So although you convince yourself these things don't happen, in all actuality they do, often, and no they do not get thrown out before trial.

Dont fool yourself into thinking that because one is an individual and one is a company that the individual is deserving, right or even honest.

As far as the thread topic, if you guys like this Sonstien guy, have at it, sounds like an elitist full of theories that are coming to the test bed of the US to me but I guess I am the odd man out on that one.