Ezra writes:

[W]e simply don't know that much about Kagan's [views.] Her defenders point to her long history working for Democratic politicians and clerking for liberal judges as a record in itself, and they're not wrong on that. But at best, it's evidence of an orientation rather than a guide to Kagan's thinking. That's why Kagan's hearings will be an uncommonly high-stakes affair, as they're really the only avenue open to us to learn about her judicial thinking.

[. . .] Kagan has previously stated her belief that nominees should be extremely forthcoming during confirmation hearings. [. . .] It's worth pausing for a moment to look at where we are: A candidate who has impressed everyone she's ever worked with [. . .] but doesn't have the sort of public record that we associate with people vying for the job she's seeking. [. . . W]e need the Senate hearings to learn about Kagan. Testimonials and analogies are no substitute for hard information.

Precisely.