[Wolfstar]

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.

[jf55510]

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.

So you won't have a problem with her if she votes the right way. Okay, however what if she comes to the conclusion that the right vote is based on foreign law, the Bible, or a fiction book for that matter? That is the whole point. She may vote the right way, but it is the reasoning she uses to get there. There has to be solid legal reasoning to get to the right vote. Otherwise she does nothing to advance the conservative strict constitutionalist cause which we all want.