« Comments On "Is the Cert Process Fully Adversarial?" | Main | Standing, the Merits, and Judge Fletcher's "Softened" Views »

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Sunstein on Epstein

Cass Sunstein has a quasi-gossipy and (therefore/still?) interesting review of Richard Epstein's latest book up on TNR. My quick sense is that it seems unnecessary and probably anachronistic for Sunstein to have credited (or blamed) or even linked Epstein for Tea-Party Constitutional politics altogether. E.g., "Everyone knows who Rand Paul's father is, but in an intellectual sense it is Richard Epstein who is his daddy." Having done so, I also wonder why Randy Barnett's work in the area isn't equally (credited or blamed) or linked.

Thoughts?

Posted by Dan Markel on May 21, 2014 at 11:46 AM in Article Spotlight, Constitutional thoughts | Permalink

Comments

It's an interesting review, but I'm left wondering if Sunstein thinks that Epstein's views are eccentric, and also whether Epstein has much experience teaching constitutional law.

Posted by: Bruce Boyden | May 21, 2014 1:54:05 PM

I do wish he'd said more about the substance of Epstein's views, and why he thought the views were wrong insofar as he does. I'm not sure if Sunstein thought that would be too dry or if he spent some much time on the details of the Chicago law school lunch room that he didn't have room, but I thought it was a missed opportunity to provide some useful information. (Or, maybe, he was able to write this review without having to actually read the book. I guess that would be a plus.)

Posted by: Matt | May 21, 2014 3:01:33 PM

Randy Barnett responds: "Sunstein's claim that Tea Party got its constitutional views from Richard Epstein (or vice versa) is preposterous"
https://twitter.com/RandyEBarnett/statuses/468884814125625345

Posted by: Orin Kerr | May 22, 2014 12:02:25 AM

Preposterous as in Barnett deserves more credit, or preposterous as in it doesn't take a law professor to convince a bunch of ideologues that they have God/the constitution on their side? Both are probably accurate...

Posted by: Alex | May 22, 2014 11:41:29 PM

Post a comment