VK said, "I'm willing to wait until those that are supposed to research Ms. Kagan's background and qualifications do their job."

I don't think any of us on the forum pretend to be qualified to vet a Supreme Court Justice. (Although if vetting is the job of the "clearly dysfunctional" government incumbents you want out of office, it makes me question how qualified they are to ask intelligent questions and research a Supreme Court Justice.) I am not going to wait on the main stream media to spoon feed me tidbit of information like Kagan plays poker and softball, is well liked and is 5'3" tall.

And unlike President Obama, I believe information is a good thing. I also believe most of us are wise enough to study and discern what is wise and what isn't. I like to use the Internet, books, newspapers, magazines, television et al, to study and read. Do I believe everything I read? Absolutely not. I always research sources and sources of sources.

(From Obama's graduation commencement speech on Mother's Day at Hampton University, "And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

I certainly hope those questioning Kagan take her advise and ask tough questions. During her days as a law professor at the University of Chicago, Kagan said the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices had become "“vapid and hollow charade,” little more than “official lovefests.”

“Senators today do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues,” Kagan wrote in the spring 1995 issue of the University of Chicago Law Review.

“The Senate’s consideration of a nominee, and particularly the Senate’s confirmation hearings, ought to focus on substantive issues. The Senate ought to view the hearings as an opportunity to gain knowledge and promote public understanding of what the nominee believes the court should do and how she would affect its conduct.”

The Confirmation Mess: Cleaning up the Federal Appointment Process.
University of Chicago Law Review
Elena Kagan. 62.n2 (Spring 1995): p919-942.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...ion-Messes.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...Kagan-saw-them