Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Regulatory czar Sunstien: Obama's beliefs should be LAW

Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper:
"Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is." (pdf under 300kb)

Should be renamed, "How to shift Judicial review too a Regulatory Branch of Government."

or: Obama and not the courts to interpret the law - you decide.

excerpts from Obama's Regulatory Czar's paper:

Suppose that in hard cases, the search for “legislative intent” is often a fraud, and that when courts speak for that intent, they are often speaking for their own preferred views... then there seems to be little reason to think that courts, rather the executive, should be making those judgments. The President himself should be in a better position to make the relevant judgments, simply because of his comparatively greater accountability. And if specialized knowledge is required, executive agencies have large advantages over generalist judges.

"The allocation of law-interpreting power to the executive fits admirably well with the twentieth-century shift from common law courts to regulatory administration if the governing statute is ambiguous."

"..in the face of ambiguity,the key questions are not for those with legal training, but instead for other professionals."

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.

Yes- what hypocrisy! the inclinations and predispositions of the judicial many should not interpret law - no- instead we should leave that to the ONE and the radical czars who operate under him.


Do you begin to understand why certain types of people were chosen for the roles they must play in the fundamental transformation of America?

Obama: says, "The role of a justice is to favor the weak over the strong. In the most difficult cases, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says. In those difficult cases,' " what matters is "what is in the judge's heart."

...In those most difficult cases...parsing ambiguity...
...the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says...

...or what the Constitution says...

And Obama's beliefs should determine the Law?

I would say this is a prime example of why we need the separation of Executive and Judicial Branches of governing, with strict review of constitutional factors, circumscribed in their powers.


Post a Comment