A working knowledge of ConLaw would actually have some experience with it. You can go through law school with as little as six or seven hours of ConLaw, that isn't working knowledge that is an overview. Since this is a nomination to the top court in the land who deals with Constitutional Law I want a Justice who, while not an expert, has some working experience with it. In private practice Miers was a corporate lawyer she would have dealt with very few, if any constitutional issues. Her six years at the Texas Lottery Commission is the same. So basically her knowledge and dealing with ConLaw comes with less than a year as White House counsel. I want a Justice who knows ConLaw not someone who has to pull out a horn book or Emanuels to figure out what is going on.
Previous service as a Judge is not a requirement and I never said it was. But lately Justices who were nominated had extensive service in Government or some other relevant post while that just isn't the case with Miers.
Why should we settle for less because people in the past were nominated with worse credentials? Last time I checked, conservatives were for the best qualified person getting the job. There is not a single person who can say that Harriet Meirs is the best qualified person for the job.
Regarding your desire to see a nominee with a "working knowledge" of Constitutional law, that is your privilege as an American. The last thing I'm interested in doing is trying to argue you out of an honest point of view that's important to you.
However, I don't believe there is any "best qualified" individual out there. It's in the eye of the beholder because the Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications.
From my point of view, results are what matter. Will Miers vote reliably and consistently right of center? If so, that's what matters to me. She doesn't have to be a brilliant Constitutional thinker in order to be a reliable right-of-center vote. She can do what most modern justices have done -- hire brilliant law clerks to do much of the behind-the-scenes work for her, including drafting her opinions. The one thing her clerks can't do for her is vote. That's the bottom line for me.
Am I convinced she will be a reliable, consistent right-of-center justice? Partially, but I still have more to learn about her.