Kohl asks Kagan why she wants to be a justice, what issues she is most passionate about, how she’ll affect lives of Americans. Kagan says that she’s eager to safeguard rule of law, says passions shouldn’t come into play. Judge’s role is just to decide each case. Contrary to graduate thesis, Kagan says judges shouldn’t pursue own agenda.

Kagan again mischaracterizes the position that she took in 1995 article on how nominees should answer questions. (See my Leahy Round 1 post.)

Asked which justice she most identifies with in terms of judicial philosophy, Kagan praises Stevens as marvelous justice but declines to answer question. Asked whether she’s closer to Scalia or Souter, she rejects either-or question, says that selection among methods is case by case. When original “intent” is unlikely to resolve question, look to precedent. Would look at pragmatically. (But how about when precedent is clearly contrary to original meaning? Kagan says nothing on that.)