Elena Kagan's First Vote Was Both Baffling and Predictable

American Thinker ^ | December 11, 2010 | Anthony W. Hager

[jazusamo]

Once Elena Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court it was certain that she would, at some point, cast a vote or render an opinion. It sort of goes with the territory. Of near equal certainty was that her initial ruling would embody everything objectionable and inexplicable about the Supreme Court, judges, lawyers, and the legal system in general. Well, Justice Kagan has cast that first vote, to little fanfare I might add. In so doing she proved that my confidence in her ability to baffle was justified.

Granted, Kagan's first decision wasn't a thorough legal dissertation. It was simply a recorded vote in support of a losing opinion. However, she did confirm what conservatives expected from Elena Kagan. She voted to stay the execution of a convicted murderer, uphold a Ninth Circuit Court decision and support a lower judge's ruling that questioned the safety of a lethal injection drug.

For a known Regressive jurist to coddle convicted murderers and side with the Ninth "Circus" is completely predictable. Understandable, no, but completely predictable. But to question the safety of a lethal drug? Maybe I'm unclear on the concept. It just seems logical that a drug administered to fulfill a condemned prisoner's death sentence would be, by necessity, unsafe. If the drug were safe, it would have difficulty achieving its stated purpose, now wouldn't it? God help us, what has happened to our brains! Educated jurists speculating on whether or not lethal drugs are safe for their intended use is a sure sign our system has abandoned all sanity and common sense.

What's next? Warning labels on sodium thiopental? We have labels on other drugs, most of which cause remedies to sound worse that the diseases they treat. I can almost hear the disclaimer now.

Are you suffering from violent anti-social outbursts that culminate in shooting, stabbing, strangling, or dismembering? One drug, Executus, has been proven to alleviate recurrences of these behavioral abnormalities. Executus is suitable only for patients professionally diagnosed with Chronic Criminalitis, especially Premeditated Murderosis. Diminished breathing and pulse rate accompanied by low or non-existent blood pressure are common among users of Executus. Some users may experience undesirable side affects, including partial paralysis, anxiety, depression and signs of panic. These symptoms are always temporary. If signs of life persist, stop taking Executus at once and contact your nearest ACLU chapter.

Give me a break! How many times must capital punishment be dissected before people like Elena Kagan are no longer trusted with judicial authority?

The Eighth Amendment prohibits government from dispensing "cruel and unusual punishments." Not only is that proper, it's wholly compatible with our cultural values. No civilized person wants to brutally torture convicted murderers to achieve vengeance, satisfy bloodlust, or simply for hoots, regardless of how heinous the condemned treated their victims. There's no burgeoning movement -- not even among the most ardent death penalty supporters -- to reintroduce crucifixion, iron maidens, burning at the stake, or drawing and quartering as practicable forms of capital punishment. But death sentences aren't the antithesis of our Eighth Amendment protections, as evidenced by the fact that capital punishment was routinely used when the Constitution was debated and ratified.

Speculating on the safety of sodium thiopental may sound nuanced, reasoned and deeply thoughtful in circles where common sense is considered an archaic relic of our ignorant heritage. Such reasoning may gain its advocate a favored seat among the intelligentsia, for whom dismissing traditionally proven solutions is a sign of superior knowledge. But it smacks of short-sighted foolishness to me, a thorough waste of time, effort and discourse.

Elena Kagan carried a warning label that foretold her voting tendency. However, like the warning labels on prescription drugs, we tend to ignore a prospective jurist's precedents, positions and opinions. Thus we make perplexing and painful mistakes like Kagan, mistakes that last a lifetime.

[jazusamo]

With Kagan on the court the 9th Circus may be overturned less.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Kagan on the SCOTUS and Barry in the Oval Office. It shows just how far America has fallen. What a shame.

[Mobties]

Oh those nonjudgmental liberal justices!

[Gadsden1st]

Wouldn’t unsafe mean the drug might NOT kill.

[imjimbo]

If we can render his Illegitimacy invalid, won’t that make any of this crap irrelevant-?!

[uscabjd]

Safety of a death drug? Of course, it’s not safe.

[jazusamo]

It’s amazing we could have any federal judge let alone a Supreme that would question the safety of an intended lethal drug.

Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.

[FlingWingFlyer]

It would be nice if we could. Kagan is a radical, anti-American, leftwing activist. She has no business being on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

[jazusamo]

Kagan is a radical, anti-American, leftwing activist.

Amen to that, you nailed it.

[rollo tomasi]

My 3 year old’s bowel movements have a greater legal mind than Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsburg, Breyer, and the rest of the malignant “progressives”.

[freekitty]

This woman should not be on the Supreme Court. I really doubt that she is qualified.

[Cheetahcat]

Can we impeach that Loon?

[Venturer]

Please God: Always keep her in the minority.

[VRWC For Truth]

Judicial sleeper cell. Her time is to lie in the weeds.

[jazusamo]

I really doubt that she is qualified.

Agree completely. I doubt any judge nominated by Zer0 will truly be qualified.

[Mayr Fortuna]

Americans!?

- Granted, Kagan’s first decision wasn't a thorough legal dissertation. It was simply a recorded vote in support of a losing opinion. However, she did confirm what conservatives expected from Elena Kagan. She voted to stay the execution of a convicted murderer, uphold a Ninth Circuit Court decision and support a lower judge's ruling that questioned the safety of a lethal injection drug.

First of all - That woman is just plain and simply UNABLE TO WRITE A LEGAL DISSERTATION!

Second and most important - SHE IS THERE JUST BECAUSE OF IT!

Third - You people voted Barry in there, now take it cold and sharp pointed!

[Williams]

Just read how she is publishing “opinions” wnen the Court declines to hear cases. She would have taken the case of a prisoner who claimed cruel & unusual punishment because he stopped taking his AIDS medicine to protest transfers within the system. She did not believe that case was “frivolus”.

She is an outright ignorant leftist disaster.

[jazusamo]

Exactly...We know and expect liberal leftists to express themselves with emotional hysterics but to allow one on the highest court in the land is proof of the breakdown of our government.

[hattend]

Next, they’ll be outlawing rope.

[freekitty]

Me too.