Shocking, I know, but Elena Kagan tells the Senate she’s not going to talk about any cases “that might come before the court in the future.” And she’s not going to talk about past cases. What then, will she talk about? The weather? So far she’s been asked about cases, and she’s explained the rulings, like a competent law student. (Professors actually critique cases in class.) So the hearings are largely a waste of time and, frankly, any senator who votes to confirm her at this point is throwing in the towel on a reasonable standard for vetting nominees. She says we should “look at her whole life” — but I don’t think a Clinton political operative’s record gives one confidence about her ability to judge cases. And if judges are to put aside personal and political feelings, not much of her life is relevant.

There was some noteworthy back-and-forth with Sen. Jeff Sessions. Kagan bizarrely denied that Harvard’s treatment of military recruiters was harmful to their efforts or that the law schools’ that denied access (but certainly didn’t relinquish federal funding) were in violation of the Solomon Act. This is simply wrong — on the facts and on the law.

Kagan expects to get by on her ability to recite Supreme Court precedent. But a justice makes precedent, and with no guide to how she would decide cases, I don’t see on what basis she can be confirmed.