[AmishDude]

Oh, I paid attention to the arguments. She was stupid, she was single. Some argued that, since she hadn't written enough, she would be swayed by people on the court. Then they argued that she needed to be enmeshed in the precedents of Constitutional law. Of course, all of those precedents, their eminations and penumbras, were exactly what swayed the justices in Roe. Some argued she would be just like Souter and then argued that the president knew her too well.

These stupid constitutional lawyers are the problem. We need somebody to clean house in the judiciary with a flamethrower and nobody -- especially not a Fed society member -- who depends on the corrupt and maddeningly asinine cabal of Constitutional law "scholarship" is going to do it. They are the ones who sway because they are hip deep in the idiocy of these people.

No one is unqualified to be a Supreme court justice. We are all subject to the laws, this is a Republic of the people and if the laws are too arcane for a reasonably intelligent person to grasp, then we are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of lawyers. A judicial oligarchy.

Well, at least we can look forward to more dissents by Scalia.

[dinoparty]

I believe Scalia and Thomas are both Fed Society members. At the very least they support it. There is a difference between worshipping at the alter of liberal precedent, on the one hand, and having a penetrating grasp of the founders, the Constitution and the founders' Constitutional debates, on the other. Are you really going to argue that Meirs had the latter?