Obama nominee: Animals can sue people
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/22/2009 2:45:00 PMBookmark and Share
grilling burgers eating meatA consumer-freedom group says President Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" is an "animal-rights zealot" who may make life difficult for hunters and meat-eaters.
.
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) has placed a hold on the nomination of legal scholar Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management. Cornyn is worried that the Harvard professor may push an aggressive animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein has argued in favor of outlawing sport hunting and meat-eating, and written that animals should be allowed to file lawsuits "with human beings as their representatives."
David Martosko with the Center for Consumer Freedom shares Cornyn's concern.
Cass Sunstein"If Cass Sunstein is ultimately confirmed to be the regulatory czar, having an animal-rights zealot in that position for the first time could be problematic for Americans who love to hunt, who like seeing circuses, [who like] having animals, who like taking their kids to the zoo, who like feeding their children meat and milk at lunch time," he warns.
"This is a guy who I would think will use every means at his disposal to push the radical animal-rights agenda."
According to Martosko, Sunstein may one day be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court -- so Senators Cornyn and Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) have both placed holds on Sunstein's nomination because they want the constitutional lawyer on the record now so that if he does something different they will be able to use it against him in a future confirmation hearing.
.
*** A little more from this character***
.
"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now."
“I’m in favor of entirely eliminating current practices such as … meat eating."
‘Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. As late as 1980, it would have been preposterous to argue that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, and no federal court
invalidated a gun control restriction on Second Amendment grounds until 2007.â€
“Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right,
then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. â€
