Arlen Specter says (I know, take it with a grain of salt, but the comments have not yet been challenged) that Elena Kagan opined on Citizens United in her private meeting with him. Oh really? Specter reports: “She said she felt that the court was not sufficiently deferential to Congress.” Well, if she’s already made up her mind on an issue of constitutional interpretation and thinks the Court got it wrong, let her explain herself to the full Senate. And what about on Ricci, the New Haven firefighter case for which she prepped but handed off to her deputy? Did the Court get that one right?

According to Specter, Kagan “reiterated her criticism that the Senate confirmation process yields little information about Supreme Court nominees and that one justice was less than forthcoming during his or her confirmation hearing.” Fine — let’s get ready for a full download of her views, reasoning, and preformed decisions on the matters likely to come before her. It’s only fair, after all, since she has no paper trail and never issued an opinion of her own (legal or otherwise, come to think of it) for her to give a detailed discourse on her views. And if she refuses? Well then senators — both liberals who are taking a gamble that she is “with them” and conservatives suspicious she’s a dyed-in-the-wool activist — will have to decide if they can confirm a justice for a lifetime appointment knowing nothing relevant about how she would perform her duties.