The Kagan Nomination ... Discuss

Thought I would open up some space for discussion in the comments amongst us educational law types on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Since she doesn't have a prior judicial record, it's hard to argue the merits from past cases, so please free form it and just give initial opinions or analysis. There are lots of bios out there right now, but I enjoyed this one. 

Here's my initial reaction having read about 4 new stories in no particular order (so, large grain of salt necessary). 

• Another East-Coaster ... grumble says the midwesterner. 
• More Harvard ... grumble says the public school employee. 
• Something about her smoking the occasional cigar tells me she doesn't take herself too seriously. 
• Seems pragmatic, which I like, but I do understand the argument from progressives that Democrats appoint pragmatists while Republicans appoint ideologues. 
• She's got Larry Lessig's stamp of approval (on Maddow too), which you know is going to appeal to me. 
• Any question who is the party of women these days? Bush = 2 White Guys. Obama = 2 Women.
• The too academic issue does bother me a little (this coming from an academic). I think it is less a hindrance on the Supreme Court than others, but still there is quite a bit of daily grind in the job of being a judge that she doesn't have experience with.  
• I'm okay with the don't ask, don't tell stance as Dean of Harvard. It's not that big of a deal. Not like a lot of Harvard kids are enlisting with Uncle Sam anyway. 

Overall, I'm okay with this pick. Luke-warm let's call it. My issue is always qualifications, qualifications, qualifications. The Supreme Court is supremely important and it is not a place that we should be playing politics. So, yes, I would have liked to see more of a judicial record, but, on the other hand, I think she has clearly worked hard and risen admirably in the legal profession to arguably one of the top jobs outside of being a Supreme Court judge ... the Dean of Harvard Law. That kind of job you just don't get by accident, so it does give me some faith in her abilities both as a lawyer and as a practical administrator. Of course, on a Supreme Court increasingly dominated by ideologues, we'll have to see how those traits serve her. My guess is not all that well when Justice Scalia launches into one of his famous rants. If I had to guess, I think she will be a consistent liberal, but one that does not take as much of the spotlight. It's a hard task to replace Justice Stevens, but then Justice Stevens had decades to hone his positions and public image. Being only 50, she will have the same opportunity. I think confirmation sails through relatively easily (the women's vote is something I think the Republicans need to pay much attention to here) and by fall we have Justice Kagan on the bench.  

But, that's just my take ... what's yours? And, let's feel free to have fun with this and engage one another.