[jla]

I myself interpret GarySpFc's intention as being that Marshall and Miers share similar mindsets and behavior patterns. It's not that Harriet and Marshall think alike, but rather that they reason alike. These then would/should make them amenable to pro-constructionists.

And I believe that Harriet's relative inexperience in constitutional law is a plus for her going in.
She'll bring a new approach in rulings of the SCOTUS in that she won't think it a prerequisite to necessarily pore over every available word dealing with a particular case. No, she might just review an argument for a case and then judge how are Constitution, or the framer's intent, deals with it. How many times has a ruling based on precedent, whether that precedent is true or not to the Constitution, brought derision and scorn from the pro-constructionists?
There is no doubting Harriet's intelligence. And I don't think there should be any doubting her ability to read 'document A', (a case), and determine it's relevancy to 'document B', (the United States Constitution).

[GarySpFc]

I myself interpret GarySpFc's intention as being that Marshall and Miers share similar mindsets and behavior patterns. It's not that Harriet and Marshall think alike, but rather that they reason alike. These then would/should make them amenable to pro-constructionists.

That is a very good analysis of the points I was making. I do not for a second believe Miers will ever match Marshall or even Scalia. That said, they will have similar mindsets and behavior patterns, and that due to character. I wanted to show the greatest justice never had any judicial experience prior to sitting on SCOTUS.