How’s this!!
Sunstein’s views on animal rights generated controversy when his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama was blocked by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Chambliss objected to the introduction of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot bring suit for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.
I have the quote from the book up in another comment.
I don’t really like using civil lawsuits for punishment purposes.
But if you did support the idea of civil liability as a way to keep people from doing bad things, the idea of making a legal way for people to sue for beating a dog isn’t really a radical agenda.
I’m sure there were more than a few people here who would have liked to have had a chance to sue Michael Vick for his animal cruelty.
The problem as I see it is that even if you supported such a move for “common sense” application, like if your neighbor poisoned your cat (note you might be able to sue for loss of affection in that case, but not for the actual harm to your cat), once you have given standing for suits for animal cruelty, there will be suits for all sorts of things that aren’t considered “cruel” by mainstream standards, and even if the suits lose the ability to bring them will bankrupt people.
Still, calling Sunstein’s idea wrong-headed (an accurate assessment) is a long way from proclaiming that he WANTS the adverse outcomes.