what actual practice? What are you talking about?
Do you think Renquist, Scalia and Thomas all had identical career experience b4 nomination? What about being in practice for 30 years would not qualify her?
Ok...she became a law firm partner at 32 or 33 yrs old...pretty good just right there....far from illiteracy. Want more? Ok. She was...what..president over the TX barr for a while...ok, still not good enough?...How bout white house legal council to a president with balls to do the right thing regardless of what the polls say...a born-again...loyal to his wife...surround himself with winners...took legal council (hint hint) and nominated Roberts (who incidentally came out swinging yesterday!).
She's a Christian of 26 years to boot! Born-again HARD! Baptised within days of accepting Christ and bearing fruit within her church.
Just what is your litmus test??
I refer to the people who actually get on the Supreme Court, and it's absurd of you to say that qualifications don't matter just because the constitution doesn't spell them out. Even Rehnquist and Thomas, who were two of the weaker-credentialed nominees, still had far better and more significant careers than Miers.
I don't have a litmus test, but if she'd either served as a judge, practiced law before the Supreme Court, or written a well-researched book on constitutional law I would have a heck of a lot more respect for her nomination than I actually do. As of now I see nothing to praise.
The litmus test is only 5% of the population would support her. Anything else is suspect to the Antis.