There were many other nominees of close associates of the President.
Anyway, Rehnquist wasn't nearly as close to Nixon as Miers is to GWB.
Ya can't concede a point, can you?
Frankly, one of the things that troubles me is that at the press conference, Dubya explictly said that Miers would "vote the way I would." In the current political climate, to essentially say that you're going to put your puppet on the court is a fatal error.
Why the HELL not? Maybe Bush should just nominate another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just to make you happy that the nominee will not vote the way Bush would.
I mean, seriously, why the heck WOULDN'T a president nominate someone for SCOTUS that he thought would significantly vary from his vision for government? Sheez...
And beyond that, everyone is wailing that she could be another Souter. Why did Souter turn out so badly? Because Papa Bush took the advice of his advisors and nominated someone he knew nothing about.
So, when Bush now nominates someone he knows well to try and avoid another Souter, folks wail about cronyism.
The fact that she has NONE of the qualifications that normally make up a SCOTUS resume (regardless of her actual ability)
And SCOTUS has done such a great job in recent years. Some of think that could actually be a plus, depending upon her views.
only compounds the problem. He might get away with either a "crony" or an apparently lackluster nominee, but to combine them in one person is disastrous.
Only if you buy into both a left-wing position and an establishment activist government conserative position simulatenously.
It seems to me the gist of your response is :
1) let's be like Clintonoids, and say "it's OK, everybody does it>"
2)don't worry, as long as it's one of our guys, it'll be OK