The Weekly Standard
So Three Cows Walk into Court…
Animal-rights extremism in the Obama entourage is no joke.
by Wesley J. Smith
07/20/2009, Volume 014, Issue 41
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=16726&R=16257278ED

Imagine you are a cattle rancher looking for liability insurance. You
meet with your broker, who, as expected, asks a series of questions to
gauge your suitability for coverage:

Have you ever been sued by your cattle?

If the answer is yes, what was the outcome of that suit?

Have you received any correspondence or other communication from your
herd's legal representatives threatening suit or seeking to redress
any legal grievance?

If you think that's a ridiculous scenario, that animals suing their
owners could never happen, think again. For years, the animal rights
movement has quietly agitated to enact laws, convince the government
to promulgate regulations, or obtain a court ruling granting animals
the "legal standing" to drag their owners (and others) into court.

Animals are not (yet) legal persons or rights-bearing beings, hence,
they lack standing to go to court to seek legal redress. That
procedural impediment prevents animal rights activists from attacking
animal industries "from within," as, for example, by representing lab
rats in class action lawsuits against research labs. This lack of
legal standing forces attorneys in the burgeoning field of animal
law--who are dedicated to impeding, and eventually destroying, all
animal industries--to find other legal pretexts by which to bring
their targets directly into court.

In 2006, the Humane Society of the United States--which has no
affiliation with local humane societies--brought a lawsuit against
Hudson Valley Foie Gras contending the company permitted bird feces to
pollute the Hudson River. The Humane Society of the United States
isn't an environmental group, so why were they suing about pollution?
The answer is that the animal rights group considers its legal
adversary to be a "notorious factory farm." But because it had no
standing to bring a private case against Hudson Valley as guardians
for the farm's ducks, but still wanting to impede the farm's
operation, the Humane Society availed itself of the private right to
sue directly as permitted under the Clean Water Act.

But imagine if the farm's ducks could sue the farm. The Humane Society
or any other animal rights group--who, after all, would be the true
litigants--could sue the company into oblivion. Indeed, if animals
were granted legal standing, the harm that animal rights activists
could do to labs, restaurant chains, mink farms, dog breeders, animal
parks, race tracks, etc., would be worse than the destruction wrought
by tort lawsuits against the tobacco industry. No wonder animal rights
activists salivate at the prospect of animals being allowed to sue.

Animal standing has friends in some surprisingly high
places--including potentially at the highest levels of the Obama
administration. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, ranking Republican
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, recently announced he was
holding up the confirmation of law professor Cass Sunstein--a close
friend of the president rumored to be on the fast track for the
Supreme Court--as the White House's "regulations czar." The reason:
Sunstein explicitly advocates animals' being granted legal standing.

In a 2004 book which he edited, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New
Directions, Sunstein wrote:

“It seems possible .  .  . that before long, Congress will grant
standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests. .  .  .
Congress might grant standing to animals in their own right, partly to
increase the number of private monitors of illegality, and partly to
bypass complex inquiries into whether prospective human plaintiffs
have injuries in fact [required to attain standing]. Indeed, I believe
that in some circumstances, Congress should do exactly that, to
provide a supplement to limited public enforcement efforts.”

It is worth noting that Sunstein's commitment to animal standing has
been sustained over time. He made a similar argument in an article
published in the UCLA Law Review in 2000. His support for animal
rights also extends to an explicit proposal in a 2007 speech to outlaw
hunting other than for food, stating, "That should be against the law.
It's time now."

The idea of giving animals standing seems to be growing on the
political left, perhaps because it would be so harmful to business
interests. Laurence H. Tribe, the eminent Harvard Law School
professor, has spoken supportively of the concept. On February 8,
2000, less than a year before his Supreme Court appearance on behalf
of Vice President Al Gore in the aftermath of the Florida vote
controversy, Tribe delivered a speech praising animal rights lawyer
Stephen Wise and arguing on behalf of granting animals the right to
sue:

“Recognizing that animals themselves by statute as holders of rights
would mean that they could sue in their own name and in their own
right. .  .  . Such animals would have what is termed legal standing.
Guardians would ultimately have to be appointed to speak for these
voiceless rights-holders, just as guardians are appointed today for
infants, or for the profoundly retarded. .  .  . But giving animals
this sort of "virtual voice" would go a long way toward strengthening
the protection they will receive under existing laws and hopefully
improved laws, and our constitutional history is replete with
instances of such legislatively conferred standing.”

But animal rights lawyers aren't waiting until the law is changed
before enlisting animals as litigants. While these efforts have so far
been turned back by the courts, they have received respectful hearings
on appeal. In 2004, an environmental lawyer sued in the name of the
"Cetacean Community"--allegedly consisting of all the world's whales,
porpoises, and dolphins--seeking an injunction preventing the federal
government from conducting underwater sonar tests. When a trial court
found that the "Community" had no standing, the case was appealed to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where anything can happen. The
court refused to grant the whales and dolphins standing, but in
language that must have warmed every animal liberationist's heart, it
stated that theoretically, animals could attain the right to sue:

“It is obvious that an animal cannot function as a plaintiff in the
same manner as a juridically competent human being. But we see no
reason why Article III [of the U.S. Constitution] prevents Congress
from authorizing suit in the name of an animal any more than it
prevents suits brought in the name of artificial persons such as
corporations, partnerships or trusts, and even ships, or of
juridically incompetent persons such as infants, juveniles and mental
incompetents.”

Of all the ubiquitous advocacy thrusts by animal rights advocates,
obtaining legal standing for animals would be the most damaging--which
makes Sunstein's appointment to the overseer of federal regulations so
worrisome and Senator Chambliss's hold on the nomination so laudable.
Chambliss plans to meet with the nominee personally "to provide him
the opportunity to fully explain his views." Chambliss said:

“Professor Sunstein's recommendation that animals should be permitted
to bring suit against their owners with human beings as their
representatives, is astounding in its display of a total lack of
common sense. American farmers and ranchers would face a tremendous
threat from frivolous lawsuits. Even if claims against them were found
to be baseless in court, they would still bear the financial costs of
reckless litigation. That's a cost that would put most family farming
and ranching operations out of business.”

But animal standing would do more than just plunge the entire animal
industry sector into chaos. In one fell swoop, it would both undermine
the status of animals as property and elevate them with the force of
law toward legal personhood. On an existential level, the perceived
exceptional importance of human life would suffer a staggering body
blow by erasing one of the clear legal boundaries that distinguishes
people from animals. This is precisely the future for which animal
rights/liberationists devoutly yearn.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at
the Discovery Institute. His A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The
Human Cost of Animal Rights will be published in January.

I can immagine and it is the very reason I fear for my kids and grandkids and am darn happy I am about to get off the merry go round and not be just getting on..........Mac~

Sunstein is Obama's nominee for Regulatory Czar. As such, he will be responsible for processing, overseeing, and making the final decisions on regulations proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, etc. Sunstein is on record repeatedly stating he is opposed to hunting. He has a long history as an animal rights activist and has written books and essays on the subject. He has even started a scholarship fund for animal rights activists. The scholarship is named after his deceased dog.

This guy is dangerous to us. There is even speculation that he will be Obama's next nominee for the Supreme Court.

This is the email I sent to my 2 senators who will be voting on Sunstein's appointment if Chambliss lifts his block.

"I am concerned about the nomination of Cass Sunstein to head the White House Office of Information and Regulator Affairs. His repeated statements supporting the rights of animals to file lawsuits seem extreme. As "Regulatory Czar", he will be in a unique position to negatively affect farmers in Nebraska. In addition, he is a long standing opponent of hunting and has repeatedly stated that it should be banned. His position would allow him to oversee regulations proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and other agencies. Frankly, putting an animal rights activist in the position of "Regulatory Czar" scares the heck out of me.

I urge you NOT to confirm the appointment of Cass Sunstein."

More scary stuff from this administration. Stuff in the agenda that doesn't always make the light during elections. Just like the appointment of Sotomayor. Makes me angry.

I always thought that we are stewards of the land and animals not their servants.

Contacted my senators! Hope it helps!

We're screwed.

I thought that Sunstein's nomination was stopped. I am not 100% sure but I believe Lindsay Graham stopped it in committee. Unfortunatley with this crowd I don't think it matters. The replacement will probably be worse.

It wasn't stopped. It was temporarily blocked. If the Dems convince Chambliss to lift the block, Sunstein goes for a vote by the Senate. Contact your Senator.

New hold placed by TX Senator on Obama nomination (Fox News)‏
From: netwatchers@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Netwatch (Netwatchers2008@gmail.com)
Sent: July 24, 2009 7:26:54 PM
To: Netwatchers (Netwatchers@yahoogroups.com)

NOTE: For more on the Cass Sunstein nomination, see the video link
below, in which FOX News commentator Glen Beck hosted CCF’s Director
of Research David Martosko.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?...listId=playlist
-----------------------------------

FOX News
Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent
Cass Sunstein's views on litigating on behalf of animals has raised
concerns for Sen. John Cornyn, who placed a hold on the nominee until
he gets a chance to hear his views one-on-one.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/...ghts-proponent/

WASHINGTON -- President Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has hit
a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a "hold" by Texas
Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor
Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new
restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

Senators are permitted "holds" to prevent a vote on a nominee from
coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific
reasons.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record
troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal
'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals
to file lawsuits in American courts," the Republican's spokesman,
Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

Cornyn's hold on Sunstein comes just as Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.,
last week lifted his own hold on the nominee, whom Obama tapped in
April to become the administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management.

Chambliss said he was dropping his hold because Sunstein had convinced
him that he "would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf
of animals," and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an
individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self
defense."

Both statements were included in a letter Sunstein sent to Chambliss on July 14.

Chambliss added in a Senate floor speech last Wednesday that
"Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from
the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country."

One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for
draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a
wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive
branch.

That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal
rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to
the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing
people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty
cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices
associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for
food.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting
animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the
general public to eat less meat.

The Center for Consumer Freedom's David Martosko, a Sunstein critic,
said those positions make the agricultural industry -- major
stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn --
nervous.

Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a "stealth campaign"
on any one of these fronts -- guns or animal rights -- by putting
pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.

"He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries," he
said, noting that "as a regulatory czar, he won't be a judge or a
legislator, so he cannot make laws. ... What he can do is nudge the
departments in the direction of his philosophy," which is very much in
line with "hard core animal rights zealots."

But Sunstein, who is married to National Security Council Director of
Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power, has earned widely varied reviews
among the political left and right, and from some of the unlikeliest
of quarters.

"We still don't know much about how Barack Obama plans to overhaul our
financial regulatory system, but his reported appointment of Cass
Sunstein to an important post is a promising sign," Wall Street
Journal editors wrote in January, when Sunstein's possible nomination
was being floated.

The paper's editors said they were cheered by Sunstein's long-held
beliefs in using cost-benefit analysis in regulation -- a concept that
worries proponents of greater and tighter regulations.

"We have concerns about some of his academic writings regarding his
approach to regulatory policy and regulatory review," Bill Samuel,
AFL-CIO legislative director, told The Chicago Tribune. "We want to
hear more from him about how he intends to approach regulatory
policy."

Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow
to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation.
Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that
"progressives would've screamed" if President Bush had nominated
someone with similar views for the OIRA post." In fact, Bush did,
O'Donnell noted, much to the chagrin of progressives.

Adding to animal rights and cost-benefit analysis is concern over
Sunstein's positions on freedom of speech.

News of Sunstein's latest book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why
We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," lit up the blogosphere last week
when The New York Post ran a column by a reviewer who received an
advance copy.

Writer Kyle Smith suggested Sunstein threatens to tweak libel laws for
the Internet and make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally
responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in
cyberspace.

"Sunstein calls for a 'notice and take down' law that would require
bloggers and service providers to 'take down falsehoods upon notice,'
even those made by commenters -- but without apparent penalty," Smith
wrote. "How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth?
(Presidential daughters) Sasha and Malia will be running for president
by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the
ability to tie up their online critics in court."

Sunstein, a prolific writer who has penned 35 books since 1990, has
plowed the issue of rumors and how they are spread, and leaves much of
the policy debate in the air.

For instance, in a paper titled, "'She Said What?' 'He Did That?'
Believing False Rumors," for Harvard Law School in November 2008,
Sunstein wrote: "In discussions of possible restrictions on free
speech, it is standard to speak of, and to deplore, the 'chilling
effect' that is created by the prospect of civil or criminal
sanctions."

"Libel law, for example, might chill speech about public figures and
public issues, in a way that could damage democratic debate. And if
there is a 'marketplace of ideas,' we should be especially concerned
about the risk of chilling effect because it will undermine processes
that will ultimately produce the truth," he wrote.

Sunstein, who once taught alongside Obama at the University of Chicago
Law School, did not return an interview request from FOXNews.com.

But being taken for both a liberal activist and a free market
cheerleader makes the nominee a true "wild card," observers say.

John Lott, conservative author of "The Bias Against Guns and
Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works," called Sunstein "open
minded" and a "true academic," but also warned that in its opposition,
the left might be looking a gift horse in the mouth.

"My guess is that these progressives are unlikely to find anyone who
could champion many of their views as well as Cass can."

Tom Firey, managing editor of the Cato Institute's Regulation
magazine, said, "Sunstein really doesn't fit readily, politically or
ideologically, in any box.

"I think this is going to be a very interesting nomination to watch on
Capitol Hill. He's going to be getting some shots from the right and
from the left. You are never going to make anyone who is a stakeholder
in these debates happy," he said.

Cornyn's spokesman said the senator will be happy when he gets direct
assurances from Sunstein that he will not pursue an agenda akin to
some of his past writings, particularly on the animal rights issue.

"Sen. Cornyn hasn't had a chance to speak with him yet, that's the
reason for the hold," said McLaughlin. "He wants to have a chance to
before moving forward."

New hold placed by TX Senator on Obama nomination (Fox News)‏

NOTE: For more on the Cass Sunstein nomination, see the video link
below, in which FOX News commentator Glen Beck hosted CCF’s Director
of Research David Martosko.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?...listId=playlist
-----------------------------------

FOX News
Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent
Cass Sunstein's views on litigating on behalf of animals has raised
concerns for Sen. John Cornyn, who placed a hold on the nominee until
he gets a chance to hear his views one-on-one.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/...ghts-proponent/

WASHINGTON -- President Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has hit
a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a "hold" by Texas
Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor
Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new
restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

Senators are permitted "holds" to prevent a vote on a nominee from
coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific
reasons.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record
troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal
'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals
to file lawsuits in American courts," the Republican's spokesman,
Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

Cornyn's hold on Sunstein comes just as Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.,
last week lifted his own hold on the nominee, whom Obama tapped in
April to become the administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management.

Chambliss said he was dropping his hold because Sunstein had convinced
him that he "would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf
of animals," and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an
individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self
defense."

Both statements were included in a letter Sunstein sent to Chambliss on July 14.

Chambliss added in a Senate floor speech last Wednesday that
"Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from
the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country."

One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for
draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a
wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive
branch.

That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal
rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to
the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing
people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty
cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices
associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for
food.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting
animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the
general public to eat less meat.

The Center for Consumer Freedom's David Martosko, a Sunstein critic,
said those positions make the agricultural industry -- major
stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn --
nervous.

Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a "stealth campaign"
on any one of these fronts -- guns or animal rights -- by putting
pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.

"He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries," he
said, noting that "as a regulatory czar, he won't be a judge or a
legislator, so he cannot make laws. ... What he can do is nudge the
departments in the direction of his philosophy," which is very much in
line with "hard core animal rights zealots."

But Sunstein, who is married to National Security Council Director of
Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power, has earned widely varied reviews
among the political left and right, and from some of the unlikeliest
of quarters.

"We still don't know much about how Barack Obama plans to overhaul our
financial regulatory system, but his reported appointment of Cass
Sunstein to an important post is a promising sign," Wall Street
Journal editors wrote in January, when Sunstein's possible nomination
was being floated.

The paper's editors said they were cheered by Sunstein's long-held
beliefs in using cost-benefit analysis in regulation -- a concept that
worries proponents of greater and tighter regulations.

"We have concerns about some of his academic writings regarding his
approach to regulatory policy and regulatory review," Bill Samuel,
AFL-CIO legislative director, told The Chicago Tribune. "We want to
hear more from him about how he intends to approach regulatory
policy."

Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow
to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation.
Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that
"progressives would've screamed" if President Bush had nominated
someone with similar views for the OIRA post." In fact, Bush did,
O'Donnell noted, much to the chagrin of progressives.

Adding to animal rights and cost-benefit analysis is concern over
Sunstein's positions on freedom of speech.

News of Sunstein's latest book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why
We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," lit up the blogosphere last week
when The New York Post ran a column by a reviewer who received an
advance copy.

Writer Kyle Smith suggested Sunstein threatens to tweak libel laws for
the Internet and make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally
responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in
cyberspace.

"Sunstein calls for a 'notice and take down' law that would require
bloggers and service providers to 'take down falsehoods upon notice,'
even those made by commenters -- but without apparent penalty," Smith
wrote. "How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth?
(Presidential daughters) Sasha and Malia will be running for president
by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the
ability to tie up their online critics in court."

Sunstein, a prolific writer who has penned 35 books since 1990, has
plowed the issue of rumors and how they are spread, and leaves much of
the policy debate in the air.

For instance, in a paper titled, "'She Said What?' 'He Did That?'
Believing False Rumors," for Harvard Law School in November 2008,
Sunstein wrote: "In discussions of possible restrictions on free
speech, it is standard to speak of, and to deplore, the 'chilling
effect' that is created by the prospect of civil or criminal
sanctions."

"Libel law, for example, might chill speech about public figures and
public issues, in a way that could damage democratic debate. And if
there is a 'marketplace of ideas,' we should be especially concerned
about the risk of chilling effect because it will undermine processes
that will ultimately produce the truth," he wrote.

Sunstein, who once taught alongside Obama at the University of Chicago
Law School, did not return an interview request from FOXNews.com.

But being taken for both a liberal activist and a free market
cheerleader makes the nominee a true "wild card," observers say.

John Lott, conservative author of "The Bias Against Guns and
Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works," called Sunstein "open
minded" and a "true academic," but also warned that in its opposition,
the left might be looking a gift horse in the mouth.

"My guess is that these progressives are unlikely to find anyone who
could champion many of their views as well as Cass can."

Tom Firey, managing editor of the Cato Institute's Regulation
magazine, said, "Sunstein really doesn't fit readily, politically or
ideologically, in any box.

"I think this is going to be a very interesting nomination to watch on
Capitol Hill. He's going to be getting some shots from the right and
from the left. You are never going to make anyone who is a stakeholder
in these debates happy," he said.

Cornyn's spokesman said the senator will be happy when he gets direct
assurances from Sunstein that he will not pursue an agenda akin to
some of his past writings, particularly on the animal rights issue.

"Sen. Cornyn hasn't had a chance to speak with him yet, that's the
reason for the hold," said McLaughlin. "He wants to have a chance to
before moving forward."

how many trappers here voted for "change"????

LOL! My signature tells you how I feel about "change"! Those that voted for change will be whining when they see how the change will effect them personally.

I believe it was Sunsteen that said "In some cases, animals should have more rights than humans", then referred to a mentally retarded person vs. his border collie. Also an advocate of partial-birth abortion...and went so far as to say(when asked how long after childbirth was abortion ok?)that up to the age of 2 years old, because an infant wasn't really human until they realized that there was a tomorrow.

From Wiki;
advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. His 2001 book, Republic.com, argued that the Internet may weaken democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups that share their own views and experiences, and thus cut themselves off from any information that might challenge their beliefs, a phenomenon known as cyberbalkanization.


Specifically he thinks that, “we ought to ban hunting.”[15] He also thinks that “we could even grant animals a right to bring suit”[16] and that it is possible that “that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.”[17] This all stems from his claim that "animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings."[18]