Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Elena Kagan held the job of Solicitor General at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama.
Her legal bona fides were extensive. But prominently missing among them was any experience of her being a judge.
I do understand that she was qualified to make a distinction between various legal theories and issue formal opinions on which of them held more weight and prevail. What I don't understand is why her willingness to be impartial was never questioned. She was never a judge. In fact, as a Solicitor General, it was her position to argue for legality of Government's use of power whenever such use of power was in question.
From an outside-of-the-government perspective, she seems like an advocate for government overreach getting nominated to the position of deciding when the government overreached and when the Government should not be allowed to overreach and its powers should be curtailed.
The Wikipedia article mentions that Senators were concerned with this question, but I do not recall it ever being brought up during the hearings. Did I miss it? Or were those concerns brought up only in private? I don't see why such an important question was not central to her candidacy.
I realize that this may parse like a few questions. But the gist of the overall question is that either I am missing some crucial piece of information or there is an overwhelming reason why this does not matter. A good answer would point to an authoritative source showing which one of those two happens to be the case.