I read E.J. Dionne’s fatuous defense of Kagan in The New Republic, and started formulating a response to his superficial argument comparing Kagan to Roberts. (It was so superficial it almost, but not quite, devolved into “and they’re both homo sapiens.”) Fortunately, I was spared that effort when I read both Paul Mirengoff’s and Ed Whelan’s posts today, both of which say precisely what I would have said if I wrote as well and had as much information at my fingertips as these guys do.
Bottom line: Kagan’s legal reasoning has proven to be less than sophisticated, and is frequently (too frequently) wrong. Further, any professional comparisons between her and Roberts really do stop at the “they’re both homo sapiens” level.