There were at least three. In the first one you introduced him. The second contained the Taney quote. The third contained subsequent paragraphs to that Taney quote. You also made a very strong endorsement of him by suggesting that I should read more of his work. That's when I revealed to you and the thread exactly who Finkelman was and you've been dancing around with egg on your face ever since, refusing every napkin offered to you to wipe it off.
Unless you are dismissing his scholarship with regard to Roger Taney because of Finkelman's political views, then by your own standards - posted even today - you must recognize his expertise on the subject.
Now consider Jaffa on the other extreme. He has over 50 years of similar scholarship. You contend that his texts were "bombs" (while failing to recognize that texts rarely receive wide circulation), but neglect his journal contributions and other academic activity. You definition of "credentials" is so narrow, as to eliminate from consideration anything but specialists. Jaffa is considered an expert in his field by his peers.
Your entire position is both farcical and hypocritical.
So, do you then contend that 3 posts (if that is accurate) constitutes "extensive"? Do you know what the definition of "is" is?