We won't truly get to know her or any other nominee's jurisprudence until they are sworn in. Whatever is asked will be replied to in a careful, calculated, lawyerly fashion.  Yes, she set her own standard so it's fair to apply it to her, but I don't expect much in the way of enlightenment from the exercise.  Only conservatives can risk presenting their  truer selves ever since Reagan successfully redefined our politics in a manner that no Democrat, not even Clinton or Obama, has since had the intestinal fortitude to challenge.

You replied that you disagreed - that you thought Specter's statement was quite good.

Here's what I'd like to know: what are we to infer from this part of the statement:

I voted against her for Solicitor General because she wouldn't answer basic questions about her standards for handling that job. It is a distinctly different position than that of a Supreme Court Justice.

Is he saying that it is MORE important that she answer questions?  That if her failure to answer questions in her SG nomination hearings was enough to garner his "no" vote then, that there is no question he will again vote "no" on this much more important nomination?

Or does what comes after - that he will keep an open mind - signal that he's willing to cut her some slack if she doesn't answer to his satisfaction?  

Also, when you get a minute - one of the things bmaz raises in the comments to his scathing post on Kagan is this issue:

Having led the office, Solicitor General, in charge of appellate evaluations for the DOJ, she theoretically should have to disqualify/recuse herself on most of such issues that will come in front of the Supreme Court for at least the next couple of years.

Finally, what do you make of the person reported to be Obama's pick to succeed Kagan?

From Marcy:

The great news just keeps coming.

Remember the "new" state secrets policy DOJ announced last year? It basically amounted to a promise that the Attorney General would review any invocation of state secrets to make sure such an invocation was really really secret rather than just sort of secret but really embarrassing, along with a promise that an Inspector General (but not a court) would investigate in case of wrong-doing (at the time, some of the existing state secrets invocations had already been investigated by IGs).

[snip]

Well, the guy Obama plans to replace Kagan with is the architect of this "smoke and mirrors" policy.

The White House is poised to name Don Verrilli, an associate White House counsel, as solicitor general after Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court. Verrilli joined the Obama administration as an associate deputy attorney general, where he helped his close friend, Attorney General Eric Holder, craft the Justice Department's new state secrets doctrine guidelines.

[snip]

Verrillii's trial balloon appointment as SG will be viewed suspiciously by civil libertarians for his authorial role in the state secrets drama and for his record of fighting on behalf of industry against tech entrepreneurs.  But he's got the trust of Holder, Bauer, and President Obama.