Excuse me?
That's precisely what it HAS to be.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is and isn't Constitutional.
Stating that someone's knowledge of the Constitution-and thus far, Harriet Miers hasn't demonstrated even a rudimentary grasp of the basics of Con law-is not material to this discussion is so bizarre, and counterintuitive that it strains credulity.
That would be the equivalent of saying, "well, we're looking for a custodian, but prior experience in maintenance isn't necessary."
Really, so I guess that an MFA from Julliard is sufficient if you're looking for someone to fix a boiler, hunh?.
Do you realize how inherently ridiculous that statement is?
You're operating under the old paradigm. It's a nice thought, but unfortunately... the guys with the most votes on the court get to have their way. That's the reality.
Until that happens... we need 5 votes there.
So who are any of us, not trained as Con Law scholars, to dare defy the pronouncements of the Harvard and Yale Justices who know far better than us??
I disagree with those that think nonlawyers can be on the Court. The job requires the ability to understand legal concepts and write high-quality opinions. But one also has to be careful not to give the impression that the job is only open to legal scholars from the "right" schools, or that there is only one acceptable path to SCOTUS (District or Circuit Court judges).
Frankly, Harriet Miers's knowledge of commercial law on a practical level does not exist on SCOTUS, and such knowledge is necessary for the Court to have. Not every case faced by SCOTUS is a Con Law case.