I’m going to go out on a limb (not really): the confirmation hearings will be dull as dishwater and Elena Kagan will be confirmed easily. What’s more, I doubt that she will heed the advice — or that the Senate will insist that she does — of the Washington Post editors:

Ms. Kagan presents the committee with a challenge it has not encountered for four decades: how to judge a nominee with no prior judicial experience. … It should be possible to engage in a conversation about the processes employed by judges without inappropriately boxing Ms. Kagan into a corner or improperly seeking her commitment on a future vote. A discussion of this type would provide a valuable and public test of Ms. Kagan’s knowledge of the law, her appreciation or displeasure with different theories, and her skill in communicating clearly and in layman’s terms.

Given her skimpy litigation experience and writings and her lack of a judicial record, it would be entirely appropriate for the Senate to insist on some level of specificity from her, and some evidence of her judicial reasoning skills. Frankly, her record is so devoid of useful information that it would seem entirely reasonable for the Senate to refuse to confirm her unless and until she coughs up some answers. It’s not going to happen, in part because she’s probably the least objectionable nominee conservatives could hope for. But then, senators should explain how, with no meaningful information available to them, they can possibly fulfill their constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent for a lifetime appointment.