The Kagan nomination, May 18 - PointOfLaw Forum

FrumForum's John Vecchione and Eugene Volokh independently discuss the merits of fighting the Kagan nomination starting from opposite positions, and generally come to the same conclusion.

Similar to Volokh's reasoning, Bainbridge calls Kagan a conservative win, considering the politically feasible alternatives. I don't know that I'd go that far: Kagan is better for conservatives than Koh (though Koh would present a much tougher vote for swing-state Democrats given his radicalism, and in that sense might well have turned out to be a conservative win if Senate Democrats rebelled in a much clearer battle of what was at stake on the Court), but I think that the alternative universe where Wood got the nomination turns out somewhat better for conservatives in the long run. I never got anyone on the right to agree with me on that proposition, though. [Bainbridge]

The Federalist Society's SCOTUSReport upgrades further with an impressive multimedia page and a list of resources that includes every senator's statement on the nomination, transcripts of Kagan's arguments, as well as materials from Kagan's earlier solicitor general hearings.

Kagan took a far-left position on the Fourteenth Amendment in a memo on the DeShaney case when she clerked for Justice Marshall—but, of course, so did Justice Marshall, and it was 23 years ago. [WSJ; Whelan @ Bench Memos]

You won't learn much from the basic questions in the Senate questionnaire. [BLP]

Crovitz on Kagan's confirmation-hearing law-review article calling the process a "charade." [W$J]

But if you're looking for drama at Kagan's confirmation hearings, a Craigslist suitor of Kagan asks her to send a coded message in her opening statement. Shockingly, there does not appear to be a media frenzy over this, even as Andrew Sullivan backslides on his promise to drop his monomania over Kagan's personal life. [Above The Law; Craigslist]