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
1) let's be like Clintonoids, and say "it's OK, everybody does it>"
This coming from someone spouting DNC talking points?
My point is, there is ample historical precedent of president appointing close associates to the court. And, in the context of what went wrong with Souter, where Papa Bush nominated a man he knew little about to try a stealth nomination, he got burned. So Bush has good reason to nominate someone he knows well under such a circumstance. So it is not cronyism if you look at all the facts and the history.
2)don't worry, as long as it's one of our guys, it'll be OK
Uh, no. I criticize Bush when I think he's wrong. If he was saying "trust me" on immigration, I would say "show me."
But judges are probably the brightest part of his administration. He has given me no reason with his nominations to think he would nominate another Souter - or even another Kennedy.
So in that context, I will be inclined to not pre-judge this nominee the way you have, and wait and see what she is about.