<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Cass Sunstein</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/cass_sunstein/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:22:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The horrible prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/26/court_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/26/court_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington, D.C.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald//2010/03/26/court</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The N.Y. Times bizarrely claims that choosing this long-time defender of Bush radicalism would "excite the left"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A media consensus has emerged that the retirement of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/the_supreme_court/index.html">Supreme Court Justice</a> John Paul Stevens, the 90-year-old Ford-appointee who became the leader of the Court's so-called "liberal wing,"&#160;is now imminent.&#160; <em>The&#160;New York Times</em>' Peter Baker has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26court.html?emc=tnt&amp;tntemail1=y">an article today</a> on Obama's leading candidates to replace Stevens, in which one finds this strange passage:</p><blockquote> <p>The president&#8217;s base hopes he will name a full-throated champion to counter Justice Antonin Scalia, the most forceful conservative on the bench. . . . The candidates who would <strong>most excite the left</strong> include the constitutional scholars Harold Hongju Koh, <strong>Cass R. Sunstein</strong> and Pamela S. Karlan.</p> </blockquote><p>While that's probably true of Koh and Karlan, it's absolutely false with regard to Sunstein, who is currently Obama's Chief of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.&#160; From the beginning of the War on Terror, Cass&#160;Sunstein turned himself into one of the most reliable Democratic cheerleaders for Bush/Cheney radicalism and their assault on the&#160;Constitution and the rule of law.&#160;&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/03/26/court_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/26/court_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>217</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama confidant&#8217;s spine-chilling proposal</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington, D.C.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald//2010/01/15/sunstein</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>     <strong>(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)</strong>   </p><p>Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.&#160;&#160;Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the&#160;Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/regulatory_affairs/default/">head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs</a> where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to <strong>privacy, information quality</strong>, and statistical programs."&#160; In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the&#160;U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent"&#160;advocates to "<strong>cognitively infiltrate</strong>" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.&#160; This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.&#160; The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585">here</a>.&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>693</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The tax breaks that ate America</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/27/tax_subsidies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/27/tax_subsidies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/10/26/tax_subsidies</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The greatest threat to the U.S. economy is not creeping socialism. It's creeping subsidism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here's the latest bold new idea for reconciling the costs of national defense with the need to avoid adding to federal deficits or raising taxes. A bipartisan coalition of "New Democrats" and moderate Republicans has proposed buying weapons for the U.S. military through the IRS rather than the Pentagon. Here's how it would work. Instead of being paid to deliver planes, missiles and tanks, defense contractors would receive "weapon supply tax credits" (WSTC). The defense contractors would be able to reduce the taxes they owed the federal government by the prices of the weapons they delivered. Because the tax credit would be refundable, if the prices exceeded a firm's annual tax liability, the IRS would send a check to the firm in the amount of the difference. In this way, the federal government could finance a massive military buildup -- and because tax credits aren't counted as part of the federal budget, for official purposes the cost of the buildup would be zero!</p><p>I had you going there for a minute, didn't I? The "weapons supply tax credit" is a joke. It was proposed some years ago by the late David Bradford, a Princeton economist who worked in the Ford and George H.W. Bush administrations. Bradford's purpose was to ridicule the growing reliance of Congresses and presidents on tax credits and other so-called tax expenditures as an alternative to ordinary spending programs funded by ordinary taxes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/10/27/tax_subsidies/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/27/tax_subsidies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>103</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Glenn Beck, Republican strategist</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/12/glenn_beck_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/12/glenn_beck_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Beck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/10/12/glenn_beck</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the Fox News host pushes a crackpot theory, it doesn't take long for the GOP to run with it. A timeline]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something strange has happened to rank-and-file Republicans since President Obama took office. These past few months, standard-issue gray lawmakers have sounded like <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/08/13/grassley_grandma/">fire-and-brimstone demagogues</a>. Conspiracy theories and over-the-top legislation to fix imaginary wrongs are flying wildly around formerly mainstream GOP circles.</p><p>It turns out that like so much of what ails the world today, this can be traced back to Glenn Beck. Some fifth-term Iowa senator might be railing against death panels, but it's really Beck's voice you're hearing. With his show on Fox News, Beck has successfully positioned himself as the weirdo right's ambassador-at-large to the rest of the world. When the patron saint of the Tea Parties lets his freak flag fly, seemingly normal right-wing functionaries have been known to line up and salute. Republicans parrot Beck's crackpot notions and pet issues routinely -- sometimes running with his manias the morning after he first airs them.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/10/12/glenn_beck_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/12/glenn_beck_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>211</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Internet is making us stupid</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/11/07/sunstein/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/11/07/sunstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonfiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/07/sunstein</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Legal sage Cass Sunstein says democracy is the first casualty of political discourse in the digital age.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Freedom of choice is not always good for democracy. This observation is at the heart of University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein's book "Republic.com 2.0" (an update of "Republic.com" in 2001), which argues that our country's political discourse is fracturing in the information age. Sure, the Internet has been a boon to democracy in all sorts of ways, Sunstein acknowledges -- but if new technology gives us unprecedented access to information, it also gives us more ways to avoid information we don't like. Conservatives are increasingly seeking only conservative views, liberals are seeking only liberal views, and never the twain shall meet. </p><p>Sunstein's career has bridged the political divide. As an attorney in the Justice Department's Office of the Legal Counsel, he was an advisor to both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. He once clerked for the liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and now teaches at the University of Chicago, known for some of its right-leaning faculty. In his free time, Sunstein advises Barack Obama, a former law school colleague. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/11/07/sunstein/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/11/07/sunstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>93</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Bush administration &#8230; right?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/07/23/privilege/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/07/23/privilege/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/23/privilege</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's order shielding Harriet Miers from charges of contempt may seem like a power grab, but it's not a new idea. Congress just needs new tools to fight back.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By late last week, the fight between the Bush White House and Congress over the firings of nine <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/us_attorneys/">U.S. attorneys</a> seemed to be leading toward possible contempt charges for some former administration officials. The Bush administration had previously asserted executive privilege over certain documents and witnesses sought by Congress in its investigation of the firings, even directing former White House counsel <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/harriet_miers/">Harriet Miers</a> to disobey a subpoena ordering her to appear before Congress. Democratic legislators were left with the option of <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000194----000-.html">certifying a citation of contempt of Congress</a> to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia in hopes of compelling Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor to testify fully. </p><p>On July 19, however, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post revealed</a> that the Bush administration was unafraid of contempt citations. Should Congress certify a contempt citation to U.S. attorney Jeffrey Taylor's office, it would be Taylor's duty under federal law to bring the matter before a grand jury -- but the White House will direct him not to. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/07/23/privilege/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/07/23/privilege/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Courting disaster</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/12/sunstein_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/12/sunstein_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Author Interviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/09/12/sunstein</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Legal scholar Cass Sunstein explains the dangers of  "fundamentalist" judges on the Supreme Court, why conservatives should fear right-wing radicals as much as liberals, and what went wrong with Roe v. Wade.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Imagine this: One day in the not-so-distant future you wake up to discover that the constitutional rights you've always enjoyed have been drastically scaled back -- or eliminated altogether. The United States you live in no longer respects an individual's right to privacy. The state of Utah has established Mormonism as its official religion. And many provisions of important environmental, civil rights and labor laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. And all this is not only perfectly legal but actually sanctioned by the Constitution. </p><p>Such is the bleak scenario that University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein imagines in the introduction to his book <a target="new" href="http://jump.salon.com/xlink?3208">"Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America."</a> And it's not so far-fetched. With two vacancies on the Supreme Court, conservatives have a chance to dramatically shift the bench to the right. And if it were to become dominated by more fundamentalist justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the "federalist revolution," as it is called in American jurisprudence, will result in a radical transformation of the Constitution and the concept of liberty as we know it. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/09/12/sunstein_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/12/sunstein_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FDR&#8217;s unfinished revolution</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2004/06/25/sunstein_fdr/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2004/06/25/sunstein_fdr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cass Sunstein]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2004/06/25/sunstein_fdr</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No matter who wins in November, author Cass Sunstein says, the country has moved far from Roosevelt's vision of a second Bill of Rights -- and a brand of liberalism that is no longer in fashion.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address was "messy, sprawling, unruly, a bit of a pastiche and not at all literary." It wasn't even delivered in the conventional sense. Too ill to appear before Congress, Roosevelt sent copies of the speech to Capitol Hill, then read it aloud over the radio from inside the White House. </p><p>No one much remembers the speech today, and the country hasn't come close to living up to the ideals Roosevelt set forth in it. But if University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein has his way, Americans someday will come to think of the address as the greatest of the 20th century and -- like the Declaration of Independence -- a model for a more perfect union. </p><p>In the 1944 speech, Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights. Unlike the original, which contained mostly "negative" rights -- the right to be free of government restriction on speech, the establishment of religion, searches without warrants and convictions without trials -- Roosevelt's <a href="/opinion/feature/2004/06/25/democratic_vision/index.html#rights">Second Bill of Rights</a> promised "positive" guarantees for all Americans. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2004/06/25/sunstein_fdr/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2004/06/25/sunstein_fdr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
