PDA

View Full Version : Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law



Eric Johnson
09-19-2009, 02:49 PM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110103

http://tinyurl.com/m976kf

Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law
'Beliefs and commitments' of nation's leader should supersede judges

Posted: September 18, 2009

By Aaron Klein
2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM 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 President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass 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.

-more-

ducknwork
09-19-2009, 02:59 PM
This must be a joke.
________
brunette girl Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/brunette-girls/)

Richard Halstead
09-19-2009, 03:21 PM
Should'nt the judges rule rather than the president or has the executive branch have too much power.

In an ideal system the excutive, congress, Supreme have a balance of power.
Senator Byrd Dem warned that the executive branch was out growing the balance of power.

Bob Gutermuth
09-19-2009, 03:30 PM
Sunstein is the same moron who wants to ban hunting and give animals lawyers and the right to sue humans. He belongs in the nut ward, not govt service.

YardleyLabs
09-19-2009, 03:45 PM
That is as outrageous as Bush's similar beliefs. It should be noted that Sunstein is writing about an 1803 Supreme Court precedent and citing powers that he believes should rest with the President, whether that President be Obama, Bush, or someone as yet unknown.

Gerry Clinchy
09-19-2009, 04:24 PM
That is as outrageous as Bush's similar beliefs. It should be noted that Sunstein is writing about an 1803 Supreme Court precedent and citing powers that he believes should rest with the President, whether that President be Obama, Bush, or someone as yet unknown.

But he seems to be saying that Supreme Court precedent, which is what we still go by, i.e. that the courts "interpret" the laws when question is raised is incorrect. Seems to me that was the whole premise of division of powers: legislative makes the laws; judicial interprets the laws; executive enforces the laws. No matter who is Pres, you get into trouble when you "obviate" one of the three branches.

This fellow is a lawyer? No wonder there is confusion! Just when it seemed like Van Jones was the worst of the advisors yet, we get Sunstein.

Terry Britton
09-19-2009, 04:30 PM
It is not up to the President, Judge, Attorney's, or even Congress to interpret law. That is left up to the juries for civil and criminal lawsuits giving their vote to either side of the arguement. We are in a common law society, and it is the commoners that say what will or will not be enforced.

M&K's Retrievers
09-19-2009, 10:12 PM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;That is as outrageous as Bush's similar beliefs.

Say what? What similar beliefs? This should be good:rolleyes:

Eric Johnson
09-19-2009, 11:05 PM
Terry-

The term "common law" in fact refers to a body of law created by judges through their decisions in cases. This is as opposed to legislative law. Technically the term "common law" and "commoners" aren't related.....sort of like blind and blind.

There is a heavy dependence common law or case law in the US system and what the law means is certainly determined by judges rather than juries. The jury is a trier of fact, not an interpretor of the law.

No place is the President mentioned in any aspect of the US judicial system outside of the nomination of Federal judges. Once nominated, they are free agents. I don't think that the President can even withdraw a nomination without the nominee's agreement.

This guy is truly scary.

Eric

K G
09-19-2009, 11:26 PM
Why is it that liberals MUST mention Bush 43 whenever ANY mention of a dolt in the CURRENT administration comes up? WHY??????

Good thing they'll only have about another 38 months to wear those blinders....

kg

Gerry Clinchy
09-20-2009, 05:56 AM
This guy Sunstein is really something else:


In the Harvard paper, Sunstein even suggests animals could be granted the right to sue humans in court.

"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are in some general sense 'persons,' or that they are not property," he wrote.

Sure wonder how he would argue that "a piece of property" can bring a lawsuit. Scientists have some evidence that plants can feel "pain". I don't really think we're in danger of being sued by a head of lettuce, but what about food animals? We already know the guy is against hunting.

The Harvard paper referred to cites an 1879 discourse on slavery in France. I think the reference is mis-used by Sunstein.

YardleyLabs
09-20-2009, 06:30 AM
That is as outrageous as Bush's similar beliefs.

Say what? What similar beliefs? This should be good:rolleyes:
In all issues related to detainees and rights of due process, the Administration argued that both under the war powers of the President and under the general executive powers of the President (the so-called "unitary" executive) that the President had the exclusive right to interpret the law and that his determinations should not be subject to court review. This is also the basis for the Bush administration's unprecendented (by volume and qualitative nature) use of Presidential signing statements. This argument was repeatedly rejected in numerous court challenges although the Supreme Court opened the door for some of these arguments in some of its more recent decisions. Before commenting on any specifics of Sunstein's argument, it might be interesting to see the actual article in question rather than WND's interpretation's of it and very political representation. Personally, however, I believe that Bush was completely wrong and, if Obama should take a similar position, I believe he would be equally wrong. Obama has flirted with some of the Bush administration approach in the arguments that US law and US courts should have no right of review for prisoners held in US administered prisons in Afghanistan.

YardleyLabs
09-20-2009, 06:57 AM
Why is it that liberals MUST mention Bush 43 whenever ANY mention of a dolt in the CURRENT administration comes up? WHY??????

Good thing they'll only have about another 38 months to wear those blinders....

kg
Because most things happen in a continuum despite the desires of the right to pretend that history,if it is "good". is the sole property of the right and that everything that is "bad" is the sole property of liberals.

After WWI, the role of the Presidency was diminished and Congress ruled almost supreme. FDR acted to garner more power to the Presidency even before the war made that easier. That included efforts to stack the Supreme Court which stood in opposition to most of what he was trying to do. In reaction to FDR's three terms and powerful role, the years following FDR saw a reduction in Presidential power (including Constitutional term limits for the President). Nixon moved to expand Presidential power again but got caught with his head in the toilet. That led to further restrictions on Presidential power. Reagan began centralizing power again and Clinton sought to build on that leading to a clash where impeachment hearings were used to emasculate him. GWB moved to reverse that decline in executive power in a manner reminiscent of FDR. As a candidate, Obama criticized the extent of the WH power grab. As President, however, I suspect that he is reluctant to give up too much.

With respect to Cass Sunstein, it should be noted that he has frequently come under fire from the left because of his statements supporting many of the presidential powers claimed by Bush. The Salon describes him as follows: "Cass Sunstein -- protector of Bush lawbreakers, advocate of illegal Bush spying (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/19/105134/542) and radical presidential powers (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/27/112259/40), and fierce critic of blogs as "anti-democratic" (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/07/sunstein/)" [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/19/law/] The Daily KOS has criticized Sunstein for years because of his defense of Bush expansions of executive power (see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/14176/260).

YardleyLabs
09-20-2009, 08:10 AM
I finally managed to track down the article that WND and right wing blogs report as if it is news discovered among the secrets of the Cabal. The article was written and ppublished in 2006 in the radical publication known as The Yale Law Journal.It may be found in its entirety at http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Sunstein.pdf.

The abstract reads:

"Under Marbury v. Madison, it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” But in the last quarter-century, the Supreme Court has legitimated the executive’s power of interpretation, above all in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the most cited case in modern public law. Chevron is not merely a counter-Marbury for the executive branch, but also the Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins of the last half-century It reflects a salutary appreciation of the fact that the law’s meaning is not a “brooding omnipresence in the sky”—and that the executive, with its comparative expertise and accountability, is in the best position to make the judgments of policy and principle on which resolution of statutory ambiguities often depends. The principal qualification has to do with certain sensitive issues, most importantly those involving constitutional rights. When such matters are involved, Congress should be required to speak unambiguously; executive interpretation of statutory ambiguities is not sufficient."

Sunstein argues that:

"...Marbury might be said to rest on a theory of “implicit nondelegation,” to the effect that the Constitution is not properly taken to grant the President (or, for that matter, Congress) the final authority to interpret its ambiguities. That authority has been granted to the courts.

"This judgment—the foundation of Marbury—has not been uncontroversial. Foxes should not guard henhouses; but who is the fox? In a famous article, James Bradley Thayer contended that the Court should uphold democratic judgments unless they plainly violate the Constitution."

This argument mirrors traditional conservative arguments that the courts should not be in the business of legislating; that instead deference should be given to the decisions made by elected officials. Personally, I tend to distrust the foxes guarding the henhouse enough that I would prefer to trust the courts. It is ironic, however, that Sunstein is now being characterized as a form of protagonist for dictatorial powers when what he argues is a dinstincly conservative position. For the record, Sunstein's article was in large part a defense of the Bush administration's decisions to exclude greenhouse gases from regulation under the clean air act.

Bob Gutermuth
09-20-2009, 09:32 AM
George W Bush was an OK POTUS. He wasn't Ronald Reagan but he was far better than Osama and the gang of radical America haters that are running the country currently. 2012 Cannot get here soon enough so that we can remove the current administration from office.

Terry Britton
09-20-2009, 09:41 AM
This guy Sunstein is really something else:


Sure wonder how he would argue that "a piece of property" can bring a lawsuit. Scientists have some evidence that plants can feel "pain". I don't really think we're in danger of being sued by a head of lettuce, but what about food animals? We already know the guy is against hunting.

The Harvard paper referred to cites an 1879 discourse on slavery in France. I think the reference is mis-used by Sunstein.

I am not sure about pain, but there are several examles of plants feeling, and acting on those sensors such as with the Venus Fly Trap, or Catsclaw Sensitive Briar. Even your household plants will move towards the sunlight a little bit. So, the question is when will plants have a descrimination lawsuit against Vegans and Vegitarians?

TXduckdog
09-20-2009, 07:42 PM
That is as outrageous as Bush's similar beliefs. It should be noted that Sunstein is writing about an 1803 Supreme Court precedent and citing powers that he believes should rest with the President, whether that President be Obama, Bush, or someone as yet unknown.



Geez Jeff......you're a broken record dude...who gives a flying phuck what Bush did in the context of the current administration....it is so irrelevant now it's pathetic. And you're getting pathetic.

YardleyLabs
09-20-2009, 07:48 PM
Geez Jeff......you're a broken record dude...who gives a flying phuck what Bush did in the context of the current administration....it is so irrelevant now it's pathetic. And you're getting pathetic.
See posts 12 an 13. The issue for which Sunstein is being criticized in the right wing press now is one where he has been repeatedly criticized in the liberal press since he has been arguing what, until now, has been the conservative position argued by the Bush administration in support of their theory of the unified executive. The article cited was writen in 2006 in part as a defense of Bush actions that weakened the clean air act and were widely praised by conservatives at the time. History did not end with Bush nor start with Obama, no matter how much conservatives wish that were true.

Bob Gutermuth
09-20-2009, 07:59 PM
So long as the left can try and throw mud at W they are obfuscating the horrible goofs that Osama is making, like being tied up with ACORN, Van Jones and Cass Sunstien.

dnf777
09-20-2009, 08:00 PM
Geez Jeff......you're a broken record dude...who gives a flying phuck what Bush did in the context of the current administration....it is so irrelevant now it's pathetic. And you're getting pathetic.

That's like my wife asking who's gives a FF what she bought with the visa card last month, in context of me sitting down THIS month to pay the bills!

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it!

Phoolish regards,
Dave

dnf777
09-20-2009, 08:06 PM
So long as the left can try and throw mud at W they are obfuscating the horrible goofs that Osama is making, like being tied up with ACORN, Van Jones and Cass Sunstien.

Quite the contrary...if you haven't noticed, Obama is getting plenty of crap from his base, who is pissed that he has essentially carried on with Bush's policies. Gitmo still open, troops still in Iraq and A-stan, Patriot act renewal, cutting deals with Pharma.... Reasonable people on both sides of the spectrum are trying to ignore all the detractors being flung by those who's ONLY goal is to undermine Obama and seize power, after having lost it in a democratic election. That may work, and it may win back some of the other issues for conservatives, but it will open the door for similar behavior and attacks down the road.

YardleyLabs
09-20-2009, 08:09 PM
So long as the left can try and throw mud at W they are obfuscating the horrible goofs that Osama is making, like being tied up with ACORN, Van Jones and Cass Sunstien.
Bob, what did I say that was throwing mud at GWB (in this thread:rolleyes:)? Where I have a problem is with "philosophical" arguments that are nothing more than thinly veiled personal attacks in search of legitimacy. I also object to gross misrepresentation for political purposes.

WND and all of its propaganda mirrors are guilty of both. The headlines on the WND and related articles implied that this was a new article discovered by WND staff and written to support an expansion of power for Obama. In fact, it was an article written in defense of an expansion of power that had already happened under Bush and reflected, when it was written in 2006, a position that Sunstein held and stated publicly when Obama was in the Illinois state legislature. It is not a liberal position, it is a conservative one, or was until conservatives decided they could use it to attack a liberal. In my mind that is blatant hypocrisy.

Bruce MacPherson
09-20-2009, 08:48 PM
You just can't get any further out there than the the group the Pres has surrounded himself with. Heck Van Jones may have been the moderate in the bunch. This is exactly what you get when a bunch of college profs run a country, long on theory short on know how.

luvmylabs23139
09-20-2009, 09:55 PM
Maybe our dogs can get together and file a class action suit against him. Since he wants to bann hunting he is taking away their jobs.

M&K's Retrievers
09-20-2009, 11:18 PM
I think Yardley is running for Czar of Bull Snit:p

Gerry Clinchy
09-21-2009, 04:09 AM
Maybe our dogs can get together and file a class action suit against him. Since he wants to bann hunting he is taking away their jobs.

LOL! That's a hoot!

K G
09-21-2009, 08:42 AM
Because most things happen in a continuum despite the desires of the right to pretend that history,if it is "good". is the sole property of the right and that everything that is "bad" is the sole property of liberals.


So...in that same continuum, the desire of the left (is) to pretend that history, if it is "bad," is the sole property of the right and that everything that is "good" is the sole property of liberals....

Close enough? Thought so....

:rolleyes:.........................

kg

road kill
09-21-2009, 08:43 AM
That is as outrageous as Bush's similar beliefs. It should be noted that Sunstein is writing about an 1803 Supreme Court precedent and citing powers that he believes should rest with the President, whether that President be Obama, Bush, or someone as yet unknown.

UHHHH, just a heads up here, Bush isn't President, "the Obama" is.

Maybe you guys have missed that.:D

Gerry Clinchy
09-21-2009, 10:47 AM
In fact, it was an article written in defense of an expansion of power that had already happened under Bush and reflected, when it was written in 2006, a position that Sunstein held and stated publicly when Obama was in the Illinois state legislature. It is not a liberal position, it is a conservative one, or was until conservatives decided they could use it to attack a liberal. In my mind that is blatant hypocrisy.

If it was "wrong thinking" then, it's still wrong thinking. Since O was opposed to this concept before, it is interesting that he should choose Sunstein as one of his upper-level advisors?

If O has changed his position on the expansion of POTUS power, then criticism of the change of position, without explanation, is valid. It surely makes him appear to change positions simply because it suits his own uses. Just as hypocritical as anyone else who might change positions as it suited their own purposes.

Personally, the Constitution provides for 3 branches particularly to keep any one branch from having all the power, so it is wise to keep an eye on any one branch intruding into the area of another branch. There are multiple SCOTUS justices, and multiple powerful legislators ... but POTUS power is wielded by just one individual. That could mean that expansion of POTUS power, except in events of national security emergency, would be more potentially dangerous.

I agree, Jeff, it doesn't matter who the POTUS is. Clearly, not all (few?) of our Presidents have had the wisdom to handle power like George Washington did.

Also agree that history is a continuum. Which means we should get off the shtick of how to parse blame; figure out how to get from where we are to where we want to be; and pay close attention to what has not previously worked & look for new approaches.

zeus3925
09-21-2009, 09:49 PM
Maybe our dogs can get together and file a class action suit against him. Since he wants to bann hunting he is taking away their jobs.

Brutus just told me he is going to put an end to this--he is running for Congress. His Slogan: "Put a Dog in the House!"

luvmylabs23139
09-22-2009, 10:28 AM
Brutus just told me he is going to put an end to this--he is running for Congress. His Slogan: "Put a Dog in the House!"

Somehow I think our dogs could do a much better job than most of congress whether republican or democrat.

Non political: Nice looking dog! I'm curious to his pedigree. Would you mind sending it to me?