For those who question Kagan's bona fides here is a short list.

[Botany]

For those who question Kagan's bona fides here is a short list.

Princeton summa cum laude
Oxford University Masters
Harvard Law School manga cum laude, editor of the Harvard Law Review

Clerked for U.S. court of appeals District of Columbia
Clerked for Thurgood Marshall U.S. Supreme Court

Private law practice

University of Chicago Law School assistant professor / tenured

Bill Clinton's White House Legal Team

Nominated for the U.S. Court of appeals District of Columbia ..... blocked by republicans who refused to bring up her name for a vote
BTW that very same Judgeship was fill by John Roberts* in 2001 and W later picked him to be Chief Justice

Harvard Law School Full Professor
Dean of Harvard Law School

Solicitor General for the Unites States

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

[elleng]

1. FURTHER, for those who question,

"Her open-mindedness may disappoint some who want a sure liberal vote on almost every issue,” Mr. Dellinger said. “Her pragmatism may disappoint those who believe that mechanical logic can decide all cases. And her progressive personal values will not endear her to the hard right. But that is exactly the combination the president was seeking.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11kagan.h...

[gratuitous]

2. Question

Is it possible to want an explanation from Kagan for certain things she has said and done in the past as a guide for endorsing or not endorsing her nomination to the Supreme Court? Because if I'm just supposed to sit down, shut up, and not worry my pretty little head about matters too deep for the likes of me, I'd appreciate knowing that before I go "too far."

[Botany]

3. No by all means please question her.

But remember in some of the cases Kagan was arguing the case of her bosses and
those positions might not necessarily be Kagan's own personal thoughts.

[gratuitous]

4. I understand that

Having worked in the legal field for 30 years, one cannot always choose one's clients. However, I'm more interested (for example) in her time as the Dean of the Harvard Law School, what her relationship was with Goldman Sachs, and how that relationship might color her perceptions about regulation of the financial services industry.

Her record is impressive, and if I had to vote today, I'd probably confirm her as she seems eminently qualified. But I'd like to look into her judicial philosophy and see what she thinks is the role of courts. One of Bush's nitwit appointments (I don't remember if it was Roberts or Alito) likened being a judge to being an umpire, impartially applying the law. But questions get to the Supreme Court because the law isn't clear; it's not a question of "safe" or "out", "catch" or "trap". I know the confirmation hearing will inevitably devolve into a grandstand-a-thon, but I hope there's some substantive discussion about the judiciary's role.