Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee seem to agree that Solicitor General Elena Kagan boasts an excellent legal record. But following President Obama's announcement this morning that he had chosen Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, committee members were divided in their opinion of her judicial philosophy.

Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised Kagan for her potential to breathe life into the Supreme Court by bringing "a diversity of life experience" to a cloistered institution. While enumerating her legal credentials, Leahy characterized Kagan's orientation to the law as "well within the mainstream of legal and constitutional thought." He expressed hope for a speedy confirmation, free of the "political rancor and partisanship that has fueled so many recent debates."

In contrast, ranking Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama, citing Kagan's lack of judicial experience, warned that a precipitous confirmation of the president's nominee was unwise. Sessions called attention to Kagan's opposition to the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy while dean of Harvard Law School. And he suggested that Kagan's elevation to the Supreme Court would be corrosive to the institution's historic role as a check on the power of the federal government.

Of most concern to Sessions was Obama's emphasis this morning on Kagan's "understanding of law, not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page, but as it affects the lives of ordinary people."

"Our Founding Fathers intended the Court to serve as a neutral arbiter of disputes and to defend the public from the overreach of a distant ruling class in our nation's capital," Sessions said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, promised a thorough evaluation of Kagan's legal career, as well as her judicial philosophy, which he identified as "the more important qualification." But he cautioned that his support for Kagan's nomination to solicitor general last year was no guarantee of "her qualifications for the Supreme Court or my obligation to support her."

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., who voted not to appoint Kagan as solicitor general, said that he would consider voting for her this time around depending on her testimony on such issues as executive power, warrantless wiretapping, voting rights, congressional rights and a woman's right to choose.

"I voted against her for solicitor general because she wouldn't answer basic questions about her standards for handling that job," he said. "It is a distinctly different position than that of a Supreme Court justice."

Specter was a Republican at the time of Kagan's initial vetting by the Judiciary Committee, but joined the Democratic Party in April of last year.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, expressed doubts about the nomination, questioning the president's assertion that Kagan would bring real-world experience to the bench. "Kagan has spent her entire professional career in Harvard Square, Hyde Park and the D.C. Beltway," Cornyn said. "These are not places where one learns 'how ordinary people live.'"

Cornyn also suggested that he would require further evidence that Kagan "rejects judicial activism" and hews to the belief that "justice is blind" before supporting her nomination.

Sen Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., offered mild praise for Kagan's record, saying that he was "generally pleased with her job performance as solicitor general, particularly regarding legal issues related to the War on Terror." But, like Cornyn, he emphasized that his support for the nominee would rest on the "judicial philosophy and disposition" she manifested during hearings before the Judiciary Committee.