From my spot inside the hearing room there were some notable sights and a few remarks that caught my ear.

This is the same room as last year’s hearing for Sonia Sotomayor but the place lacked the electricity that surrounded that nomination. There were seats available throughout the day in the public section and in the invitation only VIP area. You hardly had room to breathe in Hart 216 a year ago. There were people openly weeping in Sotomayor’s presence. I only saw dry eyes today.

A White House official was recently quoted as saying Kagan is a little bit boring. I suspect those her closest to her would object to that characterization but dull means no controversy to tip the nomination against her. Here are the key parts of her opening statement which she delivered in a confident yet measured voice:

“[W]hat the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint.”

“[T]he Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one – properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives.”

“The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

Ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., made several references to today’s big decisions on gun rights and immigration. The latter case comes from Arizona and raises an issue over Kagan’s role in drafting a brief that Sen. Kyl, R-Ariz., said influenced the high court’s decision today to take the case for its term starting in October.

Sen. Kohl, D-Wisc., raised eyebrows when he said, “We have less evidence about what sort of judge you will be than on any nominee in recent memory. Your judicial philosophy is almost invisible to us.” It was the closet thing to criticism that any Democrat offered all day.

On the Republican side the most pointed praise came from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who favorably views Kagan’s positions on War on Terror issues. “You opposed applying habeas rights to Bagram detainees. You supported the idea that a terror suspect could be charged with material support of terrorism under the statute and that was consistent with the law of wars history.” But then Graham went on to express his concern over Kagan’s time at Harvard and her role in blocking military recruiters full access to law students. That issue is sure to come up many times this week.

Senators tend to say they haven’t made up their mind about a nominee especially if that person hasn’t answered a single question but that didn’t stop Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., from saying “I see no impediment to confirmation” and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., from declaring that the native New Yorker “is straight out of central casting for this job.”

I thought two most powerful statements today came from Senators Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.. Each presented their own and opposite views of the role of the judiciary. Here is a key section right off the top from Kyl’s opener:

“Mr. Chairman, one year ago, we sat in this same room to consider the nomination of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Although I could not ultimately support her nomination, I was pleased that she testified that the role of a judge is to put aside any biases or prejudices and to impartially apply the law to resolve disputes between parties.

“Judge Sotomayor explicitly rejected the empathy standard that had been espoused by President Obama, a standard where legal process alone is deemed insufficient to decide the so-called hard cases, the standard where the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.

“Perhaps because his first nominee failed to defend the judicial philosophy that he was promoting, the president has repackaged it. Now he says that judges should have a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people and know that, in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

“The clear implication is that, at least in some kind of cases, judges should abandon impartiality and instead engage in results- oriented judging. Indeed, his own press secretary has confirmed the president’s results-oriented view.

“Exactly what kinds of results is the president looking for from his judges? Perhaps he wants judges who will ignore the serious constitutional questions surrounding some of his domestic legislation, or maybe he wants judges who will use the bench to advance progressive goals that have been stalled in the political process.

“Whatever the president’s motivation, his view of the role of judges is wrong. Judges are to apply the law impartially, not take on social causes or cut down powerful interests. While they may disagree with legislative solutions to problems, it is not their prerogative to fix inequities.

“Part of our task is to determine whether Ms. Kagan shares President Obama’s results-oriented philosophy of judging or is instead committed to impartiality.”

Here is what Whitehouse focused on and makes note of the famous umpire analogy John Roberts used at the opening day of his confirmation hearing:

“Alexander Hamilton explained, the “judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” In other words, to fulfill its role in our constitutional system, the Supreme Court must act in a manner that demonstrates its adherence to the demands of the law, not merely an amenability to political preferences.

“Important institutional traditions help the Court fulfill that duty. The Court can facilitate democratic processes, but to do so it must respect the other institutions of government. It can bolster the rule of law, but only by exercising proper judicial restraint and respecting precedent. It can uphold our Constitution, but it must not decide constitutional questions unnecessarily. The Court can exercise discretion wisely, but to do so it must balance competing constitutional values, not just apply a favored ideology. And the Court can bring true justice, but only if it approaches each case without predisposition or bias.

“Unfortunately, the conservative wing of the current Supreme Court has departed from those great institutional traditions. Precedents, whether of old or recent vintage, have been discarded at a startling rate. Statutes passed by Congress have been tossed aside with little hesitation. And constitutional questions of enormous import have been taken up hastily and needlessly.

“[T]he Citizens United decision – yet another 5-4 decision – created a constitutional right for corporations to spend unlimited money in American elections, opening our democratic system to a massive new threat of corruption and corporate control. There is an unmistakable pattern. For all the talk of “umpires” and “balls and strikes” at the Supreme Court, the strike zone for corporations gets better every day.”

Chairman Leahy announced that the hearing will resume Tuesday at 0900. That is when the questions will begin.