Bucking the majority opinion, Adam Serwer writes that "Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing has been the most substantive and interesting since the Clinton administration":

Kagan's revealed a great deal about her legal philosophy by rejecting obtuse textualism, acknowledging that there are times when judges should privilege intent over the actual principle outlined in the Constitution, and arguing that while the Constitution does not change, the circumstances under which we interpret it do. This clearly places Kagan on the liberal side of legal philosophy, and while she can't indicate how she'd rule on important cases, there's no question that for the first time since Roberts, a nominee has meaningfully challenged the prevailing conservative philosophy of judging.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.