Skip to content

For Hunt Victims, No Difference Between Monstrous Behavior and Anthropocentrism

Photo by Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

Photo by Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

I suppose it should come as no surprise that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan would slaughter animals in an effort to ingratiate herself with colleagues and peers. If nothing else, it provides a pretty good indication that she’s among the many who believe that man is entitled to hold dominion over other species.

According to CNN, between the time she was nominated and confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, Kagan told U.S. Sen. James Risch, during a conversation about the Second Amendment, “If I was fortunate enough to be confirmed, I would go hunting with Justice Scalia.”

She’s made good on that promise, having since killed animals on several occasions.

I’d like to know what Kagan’s thoughts were upon being invited to hunt with Scalia.

Did she think, “Blowing quail out of the sky sounds positively delightful,” or, “Hell, yes, I’d absolutely love to gun down a deer”?

Chances are that Kagan thought about how she would experience hunting. That is, she probably didn’t give much if any thought to her victims’ experiences.

If she had — if, for example, she thought, “I’d really get a kick out of watching the life drain from a mortally wounded deer’s eyes” — then she’s clearly in touch with her inner monster.

If, though, Kagan thought about what it would feel like to fire a rifle — and about how she’d look in orange or camouflage — then she’s blind to her own destructively anthropocentric worldview.

Unfortunately, it’s made no difference to the animals who’ve ended up in her gun sight.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*