Glenn Greenwald: The Horrible Prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein
Greenwald ..
From the beginning of the War on Terror, Cass Sunstein turned himself into one of the most reliable Democratic cheerleaders for Bush/Cheney radicalism and their assault on the Constitution and the rule of law … Unlike the Sotomayor-for-Souter substitution, which essentially maintained the Court’s balance, replacing Stevens with the likes of Cass Sunstein or Elena Kagan would move the Court dramatically to the Right, especially in the areas of executive power and civil liberties, where a fragile 5-4 majority has provided at least some minimal safeguards over the last decade
.. read more
This entry was posted on Sunday, March 28th, 2010 at 7:31 AM and filed under Blog Posts, Legal, Politics. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
2 Responses to “Glenn Greenwald: The Horrible Prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think Greenwald is being a tad hyperbolic – and unrealistic to boot. Although it is true that Sunstein is mentioned in the article, even Baker admits that Sunstein is not a front-runner for the position. Only that he would allegedly “excite the left.” He even goes on to quote an expert as saying that a Sunstein nomination would create “all-out war” re confirmation. And it is highly unlikely – particularly in the wake of the health care fight and the other fights we know are coming – that Obama will nominate someone for whom he has to fight so hard.
That said, it is true that Sunstein would be a seriously bad choice. Here is a passage from a piece by 9/11 Truth author Sander Hicks:
“Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, ‘The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.’ They go on to propose that, ‘the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups,’ where they suggest, among other tactics, ‘Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.'”
“Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts; they suggest that ‘government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes,’ further warning that ‘too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed.’ Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials ‘might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.’ This position has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.”
Ultimately, Obama is likely to go with a somewhat “safer” choice – someone who is more likely to be confirmed with less drama. Still, there’s no question we should keep an eye on this…
Posted on 28-Mar-10 at 8:18 am | Permalinkcreepy
Posted on 29-Mar-10 at 9:12 am | Permalink