Badly confused line of questioning by Whitehouse in which he posits that respect for precedent generally serves separation-of-powers principles. Whitehouse seems not to understand that if a precedent intrudes on the realm of representative government, leaving that precedent in place disserves separation-of-powers principles. Kagan, not surprisingly, doesn’t see fit to correct his confusion.

Kagan makes clear that she’s not offering any view on Whitehouse’s (ill-informed) slams on Roberts Court, says that she’s confident that everyone is acting in good faith.

Demagogic attack by Whitehouse on Exxon Shipping v. Baker (which he doesn’t note was a Souter opinion.) (I discuss Whitehouse’s previous attack on this case in my testimony.)