Cronyism: It's not just how it looks

Most people think that cronyism such as the Miers court appointment is bad because (a) it's crass and/or (b) it puts people into positions for which they have no qualifications (e.g., Brown at FEMA). But there are more serious reasons to think that cronyism in this instance is bad, specifically because it interferes with the critical principle of separation of powers. As August puts it (here):

Enter Harriet Miers, the soon-to-be highest-ranking Bush fanboy in the United States of America. Do you really see a Supreme Court Justice Miers ruling to release Bush's sealed records? Or compelling his cronies to testify? Or overturning his executive orders to hide the documents related to his father?

In a similar vein, David Sirota points out that the Founding Fathers explicitly counseled the Senate against approving appointments like this. Not sure they remember that anymore...

(Sirota link via Medley, among others)