[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"I was under the impression that a background in Constitutional law or judicial experience was a plus...though not necessarily a requirement."

O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg all meet that criterion, and look where it got us.

"Maybe you dont even need to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. You do need to be very smart and write well."

Anyone who can, in three brief sentences, castrate the entire "ban guns FOR THE CHIL-DREN!" argument is (a) very smart and (b) writes very well.

"Once again...Im not talking minimal requirements for the job...Im talking BEST QUALIFIED of ALL the known conservative candidates out there."

Given that none of the other conservatives have ever touched on RKBA in their writings...Miers IS the best qualified right now.

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID..."Given that none of the other conservatives have ever touched on RKBA in their writings...Miers IS the best qualified right now."

I'm not making this leap in logic with you here. For one thing...I dont know the particulars on how and why Miers wrote her three sentences you reference.

I don't know why the others didn't write or maybe declined to write on this same subject. Are the others incapable of writing on this subject, or were they not presented with an opportunity to write? Did they also offer comments, but none were as effective as her comments were?

You need to look at the bulk of the writings, experience base, and skillsets of the candidates as a total package to assess qualifications, just as you would for any job applicant.

[GraceCoolidge]

"Maybe you dont even need to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. You do need to be very smart and write well."

Except for the person who wrote this nails-on-the-blackboard sentence : "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." I think it is from Casey? I can't read that sentence without shuddering.