Cass Sunstein Quotes
I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense.
I think it's a very firm part of human nature that if you surround yourself with like-minded people, you'll end up thinking more extreme versions of what you thought before.
As a matter of history, the Fourteenth Amendment was not understood to ban segregation on the basis of race.
There are some lawyers who think of themselves as basically instruments of whoever their clients are, and they pride themselves on their professional craft
I'll tell you an explanation that I find commonly overrated and speculative in the extreme: the idea that things that succeed in popular culture do that because they hit the temper of the times.
Catholicism is a wide tent in terms of political and legal positions. We could have nine Catholics on the Supreme Court and a great deal of diversity toward the law.
Somewhat more broadly, I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law.
Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them.
A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.
The idea that Taylor Swift would become the giant pop icon of 2015, 2016 - she's really good, but I don't think it's written in the stars.
The opening scene in A New Hope, when you see the huge ship, it goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on... that is like a joke of awesomeness.
It's deeply human to do both the worst things and the best things because of your fear of loss.
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.
The U.S. is blessed with tremendously creative and imaginative law students at places like Chicago, Harvard, Columbia and Yale.
We often see a temper of the times connection, and it's just like a fairy tale. It's not true.
My own view is that institutions are a glory, and for all their imperfections, something really to be proud of. It is true that things can be a lot better than they are. It's okay to emphasize that.
Liberals are sometimes defined as people who can't take their own side in an argument.
Probably, if we looked at Da Vinci or Michelangelo with care, we'd see a historical particularity that the work is not treated as having. It's certainly true of Shakespeare.
Some of the Hulk movies have been merely okay. I think the thing to do... there has to be some stab that makes it something we haven't seen before.
Whatever your gender, you can be a Star Wars fan. Of course I knew it from life before, but the core of enthusiastic female fans is a testimony to the non-gendered nature of the audience.
The 'cash for clunkers' program was a big success in part because it gave people the sense that the economy was moving.
This is a very, very conservative judge who in his dissenting opinions is overwhelmingly likely to be more conservative than the majority.
We might have new issues involving information technology for example, or new questions arising out of the war on terror, or new issues arising from natural disasters that can't be anticipated.
We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law.
Wikipedia works because those who know the truth are usually more numerous and committed than those who believe in a falsehood.
Faust seems to have exerted a big influence on Star Wars. You know, the "give up your soul for immortality" or something.
I think President Barack Obama has been an extraordinarily successful president, and that this period will record that with a bunch of exclamation points. But obviously not everybody thinks that.
If Star Wars had been released in the late '60s, or late '80s, or late '90s, adjusting for technology, it fits spectacularly well.
If you take anything that succeeded, just imagine it succeeding 10 years before or 10 years after, you could almost always make, with the same plausibility, the "it fit the times" argument.
A lot of people are focused on climate change as a defining challenge of our time. A lot of people think it is a non-problem, at least in the United States.
I started to read as obsessively about Star Wars as I once did about Kant - and still do about behavioral economics and behavioral psychology.
My role in the government was not to think about narratives and consistency with narratives, but think of the human consequences of rules.
The middle class is not doing well, and trade policy might have something to do with that, and so someone who is going to be fixated on those things, who has a business background, has some appeal.
If you have a regulation that's going to save hundreds of thousands of lives annually and not cost very much, that sounds like a very good idea.
I wouldn't call Trump supporters or Sanders supporters fanatical. One thing, I would say they're very discouraged with where things are. I don't think in either case they're fanatical.
By their innocence and goodness, by their boundless capacity for forgiveness, and by the sheer power of their faith and hope, children redeem their parents, bringing out their best selves.
The process of getting regulations right is described publicly as far more political than in fact it is. It's essentially a legal and technical enterprise.
Humility is of central importance I think it's an underappreciated virtue in the contemporary discussion of law and politics.
