Cronie, who?

I cannot believe this, exactly what is the Bush Administration thinking?. I really don't care much about who this Harriet Myers is. But to nominate her to the supreme court?. Is this some kind of distraction, a smoke screen?. A big resounding no, no, so that the next one can slide through looking great in comparison?.

Bush has clearly shown with superhero Brownie and all the others that have been indicted or forced to resign, that he likes to appoint cronies to important positions in his administration. Look how much good it has done with FEMA. And Harriet Myers clearly fits at least the 'buddy' definition by the book. When the best the media could do, is say that "she is very loyal, and worked for Bush!!!," and that is some sort of an endorsement!!!.

So, with such a track record in mind, there is only one main consideration for me in this case. It has to be someone that has a transparent public carrier, that is an elected official, a judge, a renowned personality, anyone!!, but his/her record has to be verifiable in some way. Not to figure out if she is partisan or not, but to see if she is able to make unbiased decisions at all!. Harriet Myers is as opaque as you can find in this regard, and she is unique as a supreme court nominee in not having any public record

So to me this innocent until proven guilty thing should not apply to Supreme Court nominees. This a lifetime election, a King or Queen election!!, higher standards have to apply. Congress should just say: "we refuse to even meet with her, we consider this insulting, try again," and not even waste their time. Anything else is a tacit approval to cronyism.