As I hope to find time to explain in detail tomorrow (and as I indicated in my running commentary), Elena Kagan’s testimony did nothing to appease the deep concerns that her record raises about her judicial philosophy—and specifically about the prospect that she would indulge her policy preferences as a justice. Rather, her responses to key questions were implausible or unsatisfactory.

To be sure, Kagan displayed intellect and verve. No surprise there. But those qualities can’t compensate for an unsound approach to constitutional interpretation.