Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont and senior Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama this afternoon set the broad themes of the committee’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in their opening statements.

While stressing Kagan’s distinguished legal résumé–acclaimed Harvard Law School dean, first woman in that position, respected professor, seasoned former White House official–Leahy also launched the first of a series of attacks by committee Democrats on the “conservative judicial activism” of the current Supreme Court majority.

Sessions, on the other hand, criticized Kagan as too inexperienced, too liberal, too activist, too political, too friendly to big government, and too soft on illegal immigrants, among other things.

The committee’s other 11 Democrats and six Republicans mostly followed similar patterns in their own 10-minute opening statements. Today’s hearing began shortly after 12:30 p.m. and will end late this afternoon with Kagan’s own opening statement.

Leahy, suggesting that the Court’s conservatives are “partisans,” focused his fire especially on the 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore and this January’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In the latter, Leahy said, “five conservative justices rejected the court’s own precedent, the bipartisan law enacted by Congress, and 100 years of legal developments in order to open the door for massive corporate spending on elections.”

Citizens United held for the first time that corporations have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts supporting and opposing political candidates.

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Illinois says he will press Elena Kagan at her confirmation hearing to be “as forthcoming” about her views of specific issues as she once argued other Supreme Court nominees should be. Many commentators have also called on her to disclose her specific views. But Kagan will not do that. And she should not.

Her current role has no doubt given Kagan a very different point of view than when she complained in a 1995 book review that confirmation hearings had become “a vapid and hollow charade.” Indeed they have–but not because nominees refuse to state their views on specific issues.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings have become a vapid and hollow charade because too many senators spend their time posturing for the cameras and too many nominees insist disingenuously that judging requires little more than mechanical application of law to facts. Kagan called on senators in her 1995 book review to demand nominees’ “views on particular constitutional issues…involving privacy rights, free speech, race and gender discrimination, and so forth.” Such demands are understandable. Supreme Court nominees seek life tenure with no accountability to voters, ever, in a position with far more power than any senator has. Shouldn’t we know what they think about the issues that they will decide?

Well, no. The case against nominees’ disclosing their views about specific issues is overwhelming. That’s why no Supreme Court nominee has ever discussed his or her views extensively, with the exception of Robert Bork in 1987. And Bork did so only because he would have been doomed had he refused to explain his fiery public attacks on dozens of major constitutional precedents.

Bork was, of course, doomed anyway. The reasons for reticence, in ascending order of importance, are these:

With Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing due to start June 28, left-leaning skeptics worry that she may be more deferential to presidential war powers–at the expense of civil liberties–than retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

It’s true that in the future, the justices are likely to take the president’s side more often than in the George W. Bush years. But if that’s the case, the main reason won’t be the expected confirmation of Kagan. The real reason may be simpler: that the court has less cause to intervene in national-security matters now that the Bush-Cheney administration’s extravagant claims of presidential power are history.

This is not to dismiss the speculation–by leftist critics, but also by some supporters of Kagan, including Harvard Law colleague Charles Fried–that she may be more inclined to support presidential war powers than Stevens. It was Stevens, after all, who led the liberal justices’ charge against Bush’s denial of due process to detained terrorism suspects. In doing so, Stevens and his liberal colleagues stretched judicial power over the military further than ever before.

View a gallery of recently-released documents marking Elena Kagan’s legal career, Jason Reed / Reuters-Corbis

While Kagan has said very little about such issues, her work representing the government in national-security cases has doubtless given her an appreciation of the challenges facing any wartime president. And records from her four years in the Clinton White House suggest that she may be less liberal overall than Stevens.

In a far-from-conclusive effort to pinpoint Elena Kagan’s place on the ideological spectrum, the media have parsed her Princeton senior thesis, Oxford master’s thesis, law-clerk memos to Justice Thurgood Marshall, subsequent disagreements with him, Clinton White House memos, academic writings, speeches, legal briefs, and more.

But an intriguing clue that is riling up conservative blogs–so far unmentioned in the mainstream media–should somewhat allay liberal fears that Kagan will be a tepid moderate reluctant to advance liberal causes through expansive use of judicial power. The clue is Kagan’s glowing praise in 2006 for Aharon Barak, a world-renowned, retired Israeli Supreme Court justice whose creativity in advancing liberal causes by overturning elected officials’ policies makes Marshall look almost like a champion of judicial restraint. Speaking at a Harvard Law School award ceremony for Barak, then Dean Kagan praised the Israeli jurist as “my judicial hero” and “the judge who has best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice.”

One of America’s best and most nuanced legal minds, Judge Richard Posner, has pointed attention to Barak’s extraordinarily aggressive pattern of sweeping aside the actions of elected officials based on little more than his own policy preferences. In “Enlightened Despot,” an April 2007 New Republic reviewof Barak’s book The Judge in a Democracy, Posner wrote that Barak should be “considered Exhibit A for why American judges should be extremely wary about citing foreign judicial decisions.”

It’s a pretty safe bet that the Democratic-ruled Senate will confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, by about Aug. 6, with over 60 votes. But that’s not to deny that many conservatives–and some liberals–will raise passionate complaints that the 50-year-old Kagan is unfit to be a justice. Indeed, they’ve been attacking her for as long as she has been the consensus front-runner for the nomination.

Conservatives and others have pounded especially hard on her efforts to exclude military recruiters from Harvard Law School’s career services facilities as a protest against the exclusion of gays from the military.

Few if any critics doubt that Kagan is extraordinarily intelligent and accomplished, or that she demonstrated great skill as a consensus-builder as dean of Harvard Law School, where she calmed the troubled ideological waters and won the admiration of conservative and liberal colleagues alike, from 2003 through 2008. But critics do claim that Kagan–who spent most of her career as a law professor and Clinton White House official, with very little courtroom experience before becoming Solicitor General–has less experience relevant to being a justice than any nominee in decades. Indeed, unlike all nine current justices, she has no judicial experience at all.

The New York-born Kagan would increase the Court’s domination by establishmentarians who attended Harvard and Yale law schools–six and three justices, respectively–and its remoteness from the struggles of ordinary Americans. But what really animates most critics is hostility to a nominee whom they consider too liberal or too conservative.

Is signing a petition a public act, like holding up a protest sign, or is it a private decision, like casting a vote? That question is before the Supreme Court next month, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for activism on both the left and right.The controversy began last year when 138,000 Washington state residents signed a petition to repeal benefits for same-sex domestic partners. The effort, which became Referendum 71, failed at the ballot box. But that wasn’t the end of

…

Is signing a petition a public act, like holding up a protest sign, or is it a private decision, like casting a vote? That question is before the Supreme Court next month, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for activism on both the left and right.The controversy began last year when 138,000 Washington state residents signed a petition to repeal benefits for same-sex domestic partners. The effort, which became Referendum 71, failed at the ballot box. But that wasn’t the end of

Is signing a petition a public act, like holding up a protest sign, or is it a private decision, like casting a vote? That question is before the Supreme Court next month, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for activism on both the left and right.

The controversy began last year when 138,000 Washington state residents signed a petition to repeal benefits for same-sex domestic partners. The effort, which became Referendum 71, failed at the ballot box. But that wasn’t the end of it: Washington’s secretary of state, Sam Reed, tried to make the signers’ names public, citing state law. Fearing harassment, some signers sued to block the release of their names-setting the stage for a lose-lose decision.