I'm still educating myself on the President's nominee, even though she has been the presumptive nominee for some time now. At this point, I'm somewhat concerned about her views of executive power.
I'm not as concerned in the main about Kagan's lack of experience as a judge as some conservative commentators...except that it bars us from having any fleshed out sort of record to use in assessing her as a nominee.
As far as the confirmation process goes, I hope it's exhaustive and rigorous. While I acknowledge that a President certainly sets the field with his like-minded nominee, as I noted during the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama should expect vehement opposition and scrutiny - less deference overall. I would have been more likely to have encouraged Republicans to keep the gloves on in this instance if Obama had voted for the clearly qualified John Roberts. But unlike John McCain's example in voting for Breyer and Ginsburg, Obama didn't act in good faith in opposing Roberts.
Indeed, Obama's vote against Roberts (wreathed in all sorts of hand-wringing that was supposed to make us think he was thoughtful), is one of his revealing political moves that prevents me from accepting his judicial nominees at face value - or even at a "normal" level of scrutiny. The hurdle should be a high one this time around.