« The 2008 Fulton Lecture in Legal History: Gerhard Casper, "Forswearing Allegiance" | Main | The Rule of Law and a Petition Regarding the Russian-Georgian Conflict »

August 07, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


That was the most informative talk I ever heard on Obama's (and McCain's) positions from both sides of the political spectrum. Let me just add that the U of C has the highest caliber professors of any law school and at least 5 that are Supreme Court material: two left-of-center candidates: Sunstein and Wood; three right-of-center candidates: Posner (over qualified), Easterbrook and Epstein.


Sunstein's arguments are highly biased in that they are based on personal intuition and experience with limited reference to actual policy positions.

In addition, Sunstein underestimates the influence of special interests on Obama. His steadfast support of ethanol subsidies and the recent farm bill shows his accommodation to special interests over compelling economic logic. Obama may be a policy analyst, but he is bound by the same limitations that any politician faces. If both the Senate and House are ultimately controlled by Democrats, would Obama be the great moderator? Highly improbable.


Obama's foreign policy credentials are also weak but not for the usually suspected reason. The one reason conservatives might support him is that he recognizes some natural limits to US power and does not embrace the Wilsonian idealism of Bush. That said, he also is indifferent to the subject, having spent most of his political career fighting for transfer payments to poor and not-so-poor minorities. That's his real passion; foreign policy is an afterthought. Witness his quick turn-around to consensus High Broderism on Georgia.

The comments to this entry are closed.