No one has said that a non-jurist is, de facto, not competent to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
What we have said is that this particular non-jurist-with many other debits-is not fit to serve.
No statement by Justice Scalia burnishes the less than stellar credentials-or erases the manifest liabilities-that Ms. Miers brings to the table.
Actually, some have. I've read plenty of people saying that her background as a commercial litigator -- a non-jurist -- is something they hold against her. Scalia is correct in pointing out why that is wrong.
What we have said is that this particular non-jurist-with many other debits-is not fit to serve.
Based on what? I think many of the other criticisms all dovetail with her not being a jurist.
No statement by Justice Scalia burnishes the less than stellar credentials-or erases the manifest liabilities-that Ms. Miers brings to the table.
Such as? Because she's a commercial litigator and not a judge, its inevitable that she's not going to have the writings some people consider a minimum qualifier. Saying "she hasn't practiced constitutional law" or "she hasn't written on constitutional issues" is a criticism you're going to be able to level at almost any commercial litigator. It's part of the package. Criticize her for not having written/practiced constitutional law, and you're basically criticizing her for being a commercial litigator.
Add together the evidence viewed fairly (not spun as you have) knocks most of the supports from under the criticism, and that's before any of the hearings.