Tanner L. Swett wrote: > The same rule, in paragraph 5, states that it is ILLEGAL to assign a > poorly-qualified entity as a judge. This implies that it is POSSIBLE > to do so, since otherwise, there would be no point in proscribing it. > Therefore, a poorly-qualified entity is also qualified, meaning the > first interpretation above is the correct one.
I suspect you actually meant "second interpretation" here, i.e. "qualified" is split into "well-qualified" and "poorly qualified" (which, for the record, is how I've always interpreted it).
