[JeffAtlanta]

The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court.

The constitution does give the power to the Senate to advise and consent on the nomination. That constitutional check (in theory) prevents the appointment of someone woefully and obviously unqualified to understand and adjudicate constitutional law.

[Earthdweller]

"woefully and obviously unqualified to understand and adjudicate constitutional law."

Oh now it's "woefully" unqualified is it?

Bahahaha! You people are in for a rude awakening. Have you even read any of her writings or are you just looking at what the NRO has been putting out?

[ez]

That constitutional check (in theory) prevents the appointment of someone woefully and obviously unqualified to understand and adjudicate constitutional law.

And if the Senate is to so judge the nominee, does the nominee not deserve the oppotunity to stand before the body, and give testimony and explanations for those things that we DO know aout her? Does Harriet Miers get to EXPLAIN her position on affirmative action law?