That's the question of the day, along with should she get confirmed. My Stanford classmate and political analyst Paul Mirengoff sees two possible grounds to oppose her -- that she is unqualified, and that she is a hide-bound, doctrinaire liberal.
The qualifications question is particularly interesting, given that she was, after all, at age 43, dean of the Harvard Law School. Paul notes:
Depending on the standard one applies, Kagan's lack of judging experience and substantial real world legal experience, coupled with the apparent absence of major legal scholarship, might support a conclusion that she is not sufficiently well-qualified to serve on the nation's highest court. As Ed Whelan says, "Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any justice in the last five decades or more."
My guess is that, when all is said and done, reasonable Republican Senators will be able to conclude either that Kagan is minimally qualified or that she is not. Based on my knowledge of the current record, I tend to believe that Kagan possesses the minimum qualifications needed for the job.
Read the entire analysis here. Paul concludes, and tentatively I agree, that while there may well be reasonable grounds to oppose her on the merits, there are insufficient grounds to launch a filibuster -- an extraordinary move for a Supreme Court nomination -- and thus deny her an up-or-down vote.
President Obama won the election and is entitled to his choice, subject to Senate confirmation. The bad news is that the last election had consequences. The good news is that the next one will too.