Looking at the Scorecards.

Chief Justice Roberts' vote gave her a win today in Comstock, but Solicitor General Elena Kagan hasn't impressed everyone in her early tries at oral argument.

Tony Mauro, The National Law Journal:

[T]he mixed report card she has gotten as an advocate may not help as she defends against charges of inexperience raised by Republicans during her confirmation hearings, expected to start in late June.
...
Slate.com's Dahlia Lithwick, a longtime connoisseur of high court arguments, has been more direct in criticizing Kagan's style. "It's hard to see Kagan's performances thus far at oral argument recommending her for the court," Lithwick wrote the day Kagan was nominated. A Salon.com analysis noted "the justices' occasional frustrations with Kagan -- and Kagan's occasional obtuseness" during oral argument.

One argument during which Kagan took a browbeating from Roberts was Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson. "That's absolutely startling," Roberts said after Kagan asserted that U.S. attorneys only speak for their offices, not for other U.S. attorneys. "The United States is a complicated place," she replied, again using a facetious tone. "I take your word for it," Roberts snapped.

Covington & Burling's Robert Long, who argued on the same side as Kagan, said, "She has a down-to-earth, informal style that is very effective," But he added, "In that particular case it did not go over too well."

During arguments in the Free Enterprise Fund case, Kagan also seemed to get under Roberts' skin, but Carvin, Kagan's adversary in the case, shrugged it off. "People make too much of some supposed friction between her and the chief justice," Carvin said. "It may be just some transitional issue" relating to Kagan's move from academia to oral advocacy.

Carvin may be on to something. Until the past two decades, solicitors general often came from academia or the bench. Erwin Griswold, one of Kagan's predecessors as Harvard Law School dean, was also SG, as were other Harvard law professors. Advocacy skills were not regarded as prerequisites, and that deficit was sometimes evident.

But more recently, the Court has become accustomed to solicitors general who arrive with dazzling advocacy skills -- Seth Waxman's calm, "bring it on" approach to the fusillade of questions, Paul Clement's notes-free confidence, Theodore Olson's blunt persistence in staying on message. As a throwback to an earlier era, Kagan and her audience may have needed time getting used to each other.

In the Robertson case, Kagan violated the cardinal rule against answering a question with a question -- a question from Scalia, no less. "Well, I'm not making the argument," Scalia sputtered. Roberts chimed in, "Usually we have questions the other way."

Again Kagan apologized for her indiscretion. But soon she may have the last laugh. Next fall, if confirmed, she gets to ask the questions.