Well, it would depend on your view of the qualifications.

Again - I don't like the man from what I've seen of him. I don't agree with several of his views, and from what I've read of his briefs from the decisions I've seen, I don't agree with his reasoning.

However - given the actual qualifications, he's as qualified as anyone else in the country.

Given intangible (and unofficial) qualifications such as views on politically charged topics, legal expertise, education and the like? Well, in my opinion, given these qualifications he's definitely NOT the most qualified. However, given the qualifications that he be dependable to push a conservative point of view in court decisions, he's made THAT one several times.

I think a LOT of what's going on in this thread is confusing the actual qualifications that DON'T change from appointment to appointment with the substantially slippery and ever changing qualifications based on who is nominating, who is in the senate, what political ideologies are being furthered by his/her appointment, etc. It can not be truthfully said that Clarence Thomas was unqualified for his position. However, I'll stand up and scream as loud as the rest that I don't feel that he meets my criteria as an ideal Justice.

M