[Mo1]

Now that they have dared question the nomination of miers, they are being dismissed as irrelevant.

I would listen to their argument if they actually had one

Going to the wrong type of school or working at a not good enough law firm is NOT an argument for why Meirs is a bad pick

[flashbunny]

And that is what, 10% of the total argument?

So you'll ignore everything else valid that is being asked, because you feel you're tired of a small issue.

Here's one of the main issues:

List the top ten people thought to be on the 'short list' for the nomination.

Then, based on what you know about them (real evidence, not hearsay) list how close they'd be to the mold of scalia and thomas that we were promised in 2000.

Now do the same for Miers. Use real evidence. And "trust us" doesn't count as evidence.

Your likely response for her is that you don't have enough information to do the same for miers.

That is the main objection. There are numerous other picks out there where their philosphy is almost a sure thing bet. And instead of them, we're supposed to accept the crap shoot.