Mr. Kohl’s challenge to Ms. Kagan was a rare exception to a day that unfolded as kind of a set piece, with Democrats and Republicans painting radically different pictures of Ms. Kagan. Republicans spotlighted her lack of judicial experience and sought to portray her as a legal neophyte and a Democratic operative, citing her work as a policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton.  “It’s not just that she has never been a judge,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the panel. “She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which real understanding occurs.”  Democrats described her as a brilliant thinker with what Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York called “unprecedented practical experience.” Yet Mr. Schumer may have offered the most revealing assessment of the day when he mused that Supreme Court confirmation hearings have “the potential to be like eating spaghetti with a spoon — it’s a lot of work, and it’s hard to feel satisfied at the end.”  Both sides expect that, barring unforeseen circumstances, Ms. Kagan will be confirmed. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, seemed to say as much outright on Monday, when he remarked to Ms. Kagan, who had appeared before the panel when she was confirmed as solicitor general, that “something tells me this is likely to be your last confirmation hearing.”  Ms. Kagan began the day with a brief visit in the Oval Office to President Obama, who wished her well, aides said. She arrived at the hearings precisely at 12:30 p.m. to find an array of former students and family members — her brother Irving, a cousin, an aunt and a niece among them — seated behind her in the audience. She spent much of the day wearing a furrowed brow, pursed lips and a slightly uncomfortable expression, betraying little emotion as senators either picked apart her credentials or praised her.  But she did brighten on occasion, and cracked a wide smile when Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, welcomed her by saying, “I hope you somewhat enjoy it. I think you will.”  Mr. Graham may be Ms. Kagan’s one Republican friend on the Judiciary Committee; he is the only member of his party on the panel who voted to confirm Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year. He did not go entirely easy on Ms. Kagan, joining Republicans in criticizing her, for among other things, her decision to briefly bar military recruiters from Harvard Law School facilities.  But Mr. Graham did go out of his way to remind the panel, and all Americans listening, that Ms. Kagan has drawn the endorsement of some notable conservatives in the legal world, including Kenneth W. Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated her former boss, Mr. Clinton. And he praised Ms. Kagan’s stance on a case as solicitor general, advocating limits on the habeas corpus rights of military detainees.  “On the war on terror, you could, in my view, if confirmed, provide the court with some real-world experience about what this country is facing, about how the law needs to be drafted and crafted in such a way as to recognize the difference between fighting crime and fighting a war,” Mr. Graham said. “So you, in my view, have a potential teaching opportunity, even though you’ve never been a judge, because you’ve represented this country as solicitor general at a time of war.”  A central question in the hearings, which coincided with the final day of the Supreme Court’s term, is how far Ms. Kagan will go in offering the kind of candid dialogue senators, especially Republicans, are seeking. In a law review article 15 years ago, she complained that Supreme Court confirmation hearings are a “vapid and hollow charade,” and called for nominees to be more forthcoming. But she offered little hint of how extensively she planned to follow her own advice, beyond saying she would approach ‘’every issue with an open mind.”  “I will make no pledges this week other than this one — that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons,” Ms. Kagan said. “I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law.”  Republicans, though, seemed to suggest they did not believe her. Some pursued a kind of guilt-by-association approach by spotlighting her admiration for liberal judges including Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked.  After Republicans repeatedly called Justice Marshall an “activist judge,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, jumped in to reprimand “those who would disparage” the life work of the justice, who as a civil rights lawyer argued the Brown v. Board of Education case. Justice Marshall’s son, a backer of Ms. Kagan, was in the audience.  A version of this article appears in print on June 29, 2010, on Page A15 of the New York edition with the headline: Day 1 of Hearings for Kagan. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Elena Kagan pledged “even-handedness and impartiality” and promised “a fair shake” for Americans who come before the Supreme Court.