Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'

[Scott]

So what does Harvard have to do with animal rights and hunting?

Got it!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chee-to]

Well he's in "Cloture Passes on Cass Sunstein, 63-35"


Either this guy speaks with forked tongue or is a "born again" Second Amendment advocate. But like we've been advised, a enlighten person with "Harvard Law professorships and has lifelong reputations as a scholar" can't be a "KOOK." Soooo, I guess he's just a lying piece of "work" that will say what ever it takes to advance his kooky liberal agendas...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/sunstein-flunks-gun-rights-test/

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

University of Chicago law professor Cass R. Sunstein, the president's embattled nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, misfired one time too many.

Mr. Sunstein has been assuring Second Amendment advocates, including key Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, that he strongly believes the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms. In a July 14 letter clarifying his positions at the request of the senator, Mr. Sunstein wrote: "Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes."

There's no wiggle room in that statement, and Mr. Chambliss dropped his hold on the nomination based on Mr. Sunstein's assurances. But it turns out that the professor has held a certain contempt for the very viewpoint he suddenly claims to espouse.

A videotape has surfaced of a lecture Mr. Sunstein gave on Oct. 23, 2007. Here is what he said: "My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears." Discussing the anti-gun laws in the District of Columbia, he said a critic of such strict gun control would say that a "trigger lock interferes with his efforts at self-defense against criminals. What on Earth does that have to do with the Second Amendment as originally understood?"

Later in the lecture, Mr. Sunstein said, "My tentative suggestion is that the individual right to have guns as it's being conceptualized now is best taken as a contemporary creation and a reflection of current fears - not a reading of civic-centered founding debates."

Mr. Sunstein's overt hostility to the idea that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, including for purposes of self-defense, is not something that should be welcomed from somebody whose job might entail weighing in on the value of anti-gun regulations. It also makes his more recent assurances that he is a Second Amendment stalwart seem rather disingenuous, at the very least.

 

[CEF1959]

63-35? So even some Republicans support him, huh? I guess they are all kooks too.

I don't say we should agree with him. I don't say we should support his nomination. I just don't think calling him a "kook" helps. If you use hyperbole for everything, it loses its effect.

And of course he's in. Just like Sotomayor was a lock. There was an election, remember? Elections have consequences.

I'm just saying let's hold our fire until there's something worth shooting at that can be shot. Otherwise, we're just blazing away and wasting ammo being hysterical about everything. It makes us look like.... kooks. And that's ineffective.

And, like I said, I don't think people on this forum have any business calling other people "kooks." Don't make me dig up the posts.

 

[rl280]

hold on, it's gunna be a bumpy ride!

 

[Chee-to]

63-35? So even some Republicans support him, huh? I guess they are all kooks too.

Republicans voting for cloture: Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Democrats voting against: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Sen. James Webb (D-Va.).

I'm just saying let's hold our fire until there's something worth shooting at that can be shot. Otherwise, we're just blazing away and wasting ammo being hysterical about everything. It makes us look like.... kooks. And that's ineffective.

Hold our fire ?? It's to late, he's gonna do what he's gonna do, all we can do now is shake our heads and grin and bare it, at lest until the next election..

 

[Monkeyman]

Do you see the irony in this crowd calling him a "kook"? He's a Harvard Law School professor, constitutional law scholar, and author of well-respected books on law and policy. And he's called a "kook" by people who see a presidential speech promoting hard work to school kids as a socialist plot? You can disagree with him (as I do), but for YOU guys to call him a "kook" is perfect.

Do you not see the irony? Probably not. Anyway, I gotta tell you: It's hilarious. You guys crack me up.

Respected by whom?

While I see your point about kookery, I think that the value of a college education, especially from the Ivy League, is waaaayy overrated in our society.

I have worked with Ivy Leaguers who were frankly not very smart. Ivy Leaguers have just as much a chance of graduating with liitle or no education, chlamydia, and a drug or alcohol habit as the "poor" kids from CowPatty State U. Perhaps it's a small sample size, but with affirmative action, no-fail curricula, inbred faculty (by which I mean students who never leave school, but use the graduate program as a path to professorship), admission decisions based on the financial worth of the parent, and politically-correct manipulation of the overall academic experience, not to mention corruption of research by politically motivated administrations, give me a young graduate with a state degree, a work ethic, and common sense any day. I don't have children. If I did, I'd be hard pressed to see the value in sending them to a modern institution of higher learning. And I dropped out of "Professor" Ayers' fine urban cesspool back in 1978 when I saw that I knew more about a particular subject than most of my teachers. From my observations, it looks like it's only gotten worse.

I believe most of us "kooks", though perhaps not as "educated" as our more intellectual members would prefer, can spot a fraud a mile away based on common sense, a respect for traditional values of self-reliance and compassion for those less fortunate, and life experience.

With all respect to your personal accomplishments, "well-respected" academics are usually only respected by other academics, just like the Oscars are an annual circle-jerk for the movie industry. Incestuous at best, irrelevant to most at the end of the day.

In short, a college degree ain't what it used to be. . .

And having a bunch of them is not necessarily something to be proud of.

Just for fun, there's this. . .

 

[Jamie6.5]

The Cloture was only to stop a hold/filibuster threat. The vote was to move forward with an up or down vote to confirm or reject.
He isn't out of the woods and into the (white) house yet. Has anyone heard otherwise?

And he IS a KOOK! anyone that advocates for an animal's right to sue people for maltreatment due to being hunted or trained for entertainment purposes is a kook period.
He is talking out both sides of his mouth at the moment, for the confirmation process though.
Kind of like the boss he wants.
Tell any lie you have to to gain the office. His core beliefs were well represented by HIM previously and repeatedly.
To he77 with what the people want after you get in.
Shove your whack-job agenda down the people's throats.

With any luck he won't be confirmed.
Anyone voting for his confirmation will get another letter from me, reminding them how I will be actively campaining against them come re-election time!

Sorry CEF, that kool-aide isn't any more tasty than the last batch you tried to serve up around here.

 

[Trlsmn]

Do you see the irony in this crowd calling him a "kook"? He's a Harvard Law School professor, constitutional law scholar, and author of well-respected books on law and policy. And he's called a "kook" by people who see a presidential speech promoting hard work to school kids as a socialist plot? You can disagree with him (as I do), but for YOU guys to call him a "kook" is perfect.

Do you not see the irony? Probably not. Anyway, I gotta tell you: It's hilarious. You guys crack me up.

Nice blanket label you just gave everyone on this forum!

 

[Trlsmn]

I've read lots of science books but I don't go around calling respected scientists "kooks" when I disagree with them. Unless, of course, they spout nonsense outside their field....

About that spouting nonsense.............Cass Sunstein has no Science degrees, is not a scientist nor has any background in science. The fact is he has zero credentials in science or the animal kingdom! The guy is 100% law and that is all. AKA kook!

This knowledge did not require a a stack of credentials to acquire it's public record! CEF1959 you are either being purposely deceptive or willfully ignorant.

 

[fingolfen]

Yeah, well, I've got degrees too from top 10 schools and have published books and articles in my field. But I don't purport to be an expert OUTSIDE my field. I've read lots of science books but I don't go around calling respected scientists "kooks" when I disagree with them. Unless, of course, they spout nonsense outside their field....

The University of Chicago and Harvard University both thought Sunstein's views were worth granting tenured professorships. But you disagree; you know better than either university; you write a blog; so he's the kook.

Got it....

Now I seriously doubt your statement would hold up to scrutiny... Given the vast number of politically charged issues facing science today - I'm certain you've issued derogatory invectives against scientists who hold views you disagree with...

As to the Second Amendment and constitutional law - it doesn't take a law degree to understand when someone is trying to bend interpretations to suit their vision - it just takes what should be a basic grounding in civics and American history - which anyone with a half decent education should possess.

 

[Trlsmn]

Derogatory invectives? Isn't that a double negative? Can there be a complimentary invective?

 

[Chee-to]

Visit "Smokeless Powder", my firearms and 2nd Amendment blog: <broken link removed>

Great info..........

 

[fingolfen]

Derogatory invectives? Isn't that a double negative? Can there be a complimentary invective?

Not a double negative... probably redundant though...

 

[fingolfen]

Great info..........

Thanks!

 

[tkdguy]

I responded and sent off two emails last night through my Oregon Senator's websites. This guy seems to be just as screwy as the Jones guy that just resigned.

There is a pattern with this administration of appointing folks beyond the fringe of reality. Who ever is making the recommendations for appointments evidences severely disordered social thinking and very poor political judgment. But, the reason this is likely happening is because those in power simply do not care about the masses. Self-interest and idiopathic interest prevails and can been seen by the transcripts of Cass Sustein's speech cited above.

 

[CEF1959]

There is a pattern with this administration of appointing folks beyond the fringe of reality. QUOTE]

Beyond the fringe of reality? Again, the irony from this group drips....

Wake me when someone has a real threat to gun or hunter rights to report. And please don't ring the bell because of something you heard on talk radio of Fox News. Check it first. Then ring the bell. Some of us try to live in a fact-based, reality-based, kook-free world.

 

[CEF1959]

This guy seems to be just as screwy as the Jones guy that just resigned.

There is a pattern with this administration of appointing folks beyond the fringe of reality.

Screwy? Beyond the fringe of reality? Have you read the political posts in this forum recently? I can pull up the posts if you need me too, but I don't think you need me to.

Wake me when someone has a real threat to gun or hunter rights to report. And please don't ring the bell because of something you heard on talk radio or Fox commentary or someone's goofy blog. Check it first for facts and determine there's something real to worry about. Then ring the bell. Some of us try to live in a fact-based, reality-based, kook-free world. And we have lives to lead that don't involve freaking out over things we hear or read on the internet.

 

[Trlsmn]

Screwy? Beyond the fringe of reality? Have you read the political posts in this forum recently? I can pull up the posts if you need me too, but I don't think you need me to.

Irrelevant! the people here you seek to minimize and label will not be in charge of the most powerful appointments in the country!

Instead of attempting to take their voice away why not give us your opinion of why these people you defend should lead the American people! To be specific I want know what they have done not what title they hold!

 

[Chee-to]

Screwy? Beyond the fringe of reality? Have you read the political posts in this forum recently? I can pull up the posts if you need me too, but I don't think you need me to.

Wake me when someone has a real threat to gun or hunter rights to report. And please don't ring the bell because of something you heard on talk radio or Fox commentary or someone's goofy blog. Check it first for facts and determine there's something real to worry about. Then ring the bell. Some of us try to live in a fact-based, reality-based, kook-free world. And we have lives to lead that don't involve freaking out over things we hear or read on the internet.

Now that we can't trust the internet, right wing blogs, news papers, TV or the GOA. Please give us a source for the "REAL UNBIASED" truth. Where do harvest your "fact-based, reality-based, kook-free" information ? Please be specific, you seem to be the only one who isn't concerned about a "real threat" to "gun or hunter rights" from this administration. Your wait till it happens, then be concerned, to late to take action approach on this, seems to be how you would have the gun community handle any perceived threats to to the 2nd amendment....

 

[Trlsmn]

Now that we can't trust the internet, right wing blogs, news papers, TV or the GOA. Please give us a source for the "REAL UNBIASED" truth. Where do harvest your "fact-based, reality-based, kook-free" information ? Please be specific, you seem to be the only one who isn't concerned about a "real threat" to "gun or hunter rights" from this administration. Your wait till it happens, then be concerned, to late to take action approach on this, seems to be how you would have the gun community handle any perceived threats to to the 2nd amendment....

+ eleventy billion!