Kagan: I have no grand theory of constitutional interpretation. I’m a pragmatist and rely on various sources. (Entirely malleable.)

Kagan: I have no reason to think that the Court’s decision in Heller was wrong in any way, but haven’t studied underlying materials. (How can she now decline to say whether she has any reason to think that other decisions were wrong in any way?) Heller and McDonald are settled law entitled to same respect as any other precedent.

Kagan: Fine on looking to any source, including foreign law, for good ideas. But generally not binding. Rejects idea that justices should take into account America’s influence in the world. (I believe Breyer has advanced that notion.)

Grassley asks about Kagan’s position in Oxford thesis that judges can mold and steer law to advance own values. Kagan: I wrote paper before law school. Rejects position (I think).

Grassley asks about Kagan’s “judicial hero,” Aharon Barak. Kagan: I admire Justice Barak for his role in state of Israel and in ensuring rule of law. (That doesn’t explain why she called him “my judicial hero” or how his judicial philosophy can be said to advance the rule of law.) Rejects Barak’s view of blurring of judicial and legislative roles. Says his views can’t be transplanted to U.S. Says her introductions were routinely lavish.