You are the guy who tried to tell us that Miers was as qualified as John Marshall when he took the job, until I pointed out that Marshall did not just study law for a little bit, but studied it under John Whyte at William and Mary (Jefferson's law professor), and that by the time he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was a hero of the revolution, had established a sound law career and was a leading elected and appointed member of our newly formed republic.
Marshall did that. Consisted of attending a few lectures over the course of one year. Marshall also spent some little time serving as a Judge Advocate for the Continental Army.
Other than that, you'd have to say by education and experience, Miers' qualifications outshine Marshall's.
But then like now, there were no perquisites for being a Supreme Court Justices, only preferences, a nomination, and confirmation.
I have noticed that the "stealth is okay - trust in GWB" camp has been more prolific with misleading posts, than the "fact finding and rational discussion" camp is. I've seen this pattern in other FR "events" as well, and after a day or two of independent study, I have been able to reliably conclude, objectively, which side is being intellectually honest, and which side is playing mind and word games.
GarySpFc, your posts are making a negative impact on your credibility as intellectually honest. I respect that you are an advocate. In fact, you are an exceptionally good advocate. But those of us who take the time to "fact check" your posts are finding that too many of them are misleading.
This entire FR/government process works so much better if it based on basic honesty regarding fact presentation. To do otherwise reduces what could be reasoned debate into nothing more than playground mudslinging.