Cass Sunstein
Cass Sunstein
Cass Robert Sunsteinis an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School...
NationalityAmerican
ProfessionPolitician
Date of Birth21 September 1954
CountryUnited States of America
Catholicism is a wide tent in terms of political and legal positions. We could have nine Catholics on the Supreme Court and a great deal of diversity toward the law.
The U.S. is blessed with tremendously creative and imaginative law students at places like Chicago, Harvard, Columbia and Yale.
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,
I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.
Somewhat more broadly, I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law.
I am proud to say that the Federalist Society was founded in part at the University of Chicago, and one of its best characteristics has been an attack on liberal shibboleths by looking at real consequences and specific problems and by asking what law actually does.
I don't think any new member of the court will expect the court to follow his or her lead. We have nine separate law offices headed by strong-willed people.
The Court failed to identify a provision of the (Constitution) that the Connecticut law violated. Instead it spoke vaguely of the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of the Bill of Rights, in language that continues to turn the stomach of fundamentalists (and many others), ... Radicals in Robes.
a simple brain freeze, the sort that all human beings are subject to. On the other hand, it is at least mildly embarrassing to make a mistake of that magnitude.
People who know him in Washington, D.C., of various ideological stripes, say this is not the type to be a fundamentalist. He is clearly extremely able, and his opinions are real lawyers' opinions.
Even though he's been in public life a long time, he's got a pretty sparse record. So I wouldn't be sure in any area. I've got hunches, that's all.
On the facts thus far, the president has a decent argument that he acted lawfully. There's also a decent argument that he didn't. But if the president has a decent argument, he can't be impeached for getting it wrong.
She doesn't have anything like the qualifications of recent nominees. They were exceptionally qualified, both by their judicial experience and experience before they were on the court. Those three were a whole different league of qualifications.
She is unquestionably an intelligent person and a competent lawyer. But she's had very little experience in constitutional law.