Kagan's lack of judicial experience has raised some concerns about whether she would be a "reliable" vote on the left. The far left has also raised concerns that as solicitor general, Kagan has articulated a more robust defense of Executive power than many civil rights and human rights groups would like.
Six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That's half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Kagan is a Jew so there will be no Protestants the Supreme Court in a majority Protestant nation. For many decades and generations, all of the justices were Protestant.
It seems to me that when Protestant make up such a large majority of the country, this nomination may create some ill will. Jurists from western U.S. states and non ivy leaguers are also missing from the Court.
It has been reported that Kagan received $10,000 in 2008 for serving as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. Libtards can't be happy with this revelation either. On the other side, Republicans tripped over themselves in praise during the hearings for her nomination as Solicitor General.
"Dean, you've done a terrific job up there at Harvard," said Orrin Hatch of Utah, referring to her job running that university's law school. "I have no doubt in hearing you that you're up to the task," said Oklahoma's Tom Coburn. "I look forward to supporting you," explained South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, calling Kagan "very qualified."
So why Kagan? Liberal legal blogger Glenn Greenwald has the answer.
"Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority."