[GOPcapitalist]

One key point in judging the merits of an arguement is judging the qualifications of the person arguing.

Only in the weakest sense. Unaided appeal to authority is known as one of the sloppiest forms of argumentation available.

And in that case, one could easily note that Rehnquist's credentials as a long serving Supreme Court are at least matched by Roger Taney and Joseph Story, who both held opposite of him on habeas corpus. And Rehnquist's credentials, however great they may be, are in fact weaker on constitutional issues than John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson, who represent the foremost of history's foremost figures on the constitution. Both Jefferson and Marshall held differently than Rehnquist. So where does that leave us? Five beats one, I guess.

You are an unknown.

Which only solidifies my point - you know virtually nothing of me beyond FR. You know nothing of my education, degrees, publication, professional credentials, or much of anything else. That fact in itself brings your argument trouble, as a full half of the equation required for you to make the judgment is missing from it. Try again.

[GOPcapitalist]

My apologies. I neglected to name Madison in that group, the fifth of the five experts.

Jefferson, Madison, Story, Taney, and Marshall agreed with me. Rehnquist agrees with you. Five beats one.

[Non-Sequitur]

And in that case, one could easily note that Rehnquist's credentials as a long serving Supreme Court are at least matched by Roger Taney and Joseph Story...

Perhaps, but Rehquist doesn't have anything close to the Dred Scott decision casting any doubts on his judicial judgement.

You know nothing of my education, degrees, publication, professional credentials, or much of anything else.

True, while on the other hand Chief Justice Rehnquist's qualifications and experience are well known. Given the known verses the unknown I'll have to go along with the known.