And I do understand why CL is the way it is. That doesn't mean it's perfect (neither is Scheme: I just happen to prefer it).
Historically, Scheme somewhat dodged avoided issues like argument order by excluding functionality from the language spec. My experience is that once Scheme gets expanded out and becomes Racket, the many hands show up as inconsistencies among similar functions much like Common Lisp.
Clojure, to me, seems to have the right idea: procedures that abstract operations from data types...for example there is not one mapping procedure for lists and another mapping procedure for arrays. Racket seems to be headed in that direction.
In Common Lisp, MAP works just as well on either.
None of which is to say that Clojure isn't standing on the shoulders of giants.
er (or explicit rename) macros are the simplest system: they're like CL macros, with a few minor differences. Also, because Scheme is a lisp-1 with a mutable global environment, you have to rename absolutely everything. Even lambda. Yes, really.
Because of this, CHICKEN (the only scheme that uses er macros) also has ir macros, which are like er macros, except that everything is implicitly renamed unless you say otherwise. However, expanding an ir macro is O(n) under the hood, which sucks. This is probably the worst part of CHICKEN, but it works well enough.
sc (syntactic closure) macros are similar to ir macros in nature, although the syntax and abstraction is different. It's a pretty nice system, currently used in Chibi and MIT scheme, and (while it's really too early to tell) seem to be the macro system most likely to make its way into R7RS-large.
Finally, there's syntax-case. It's used by racket (I think: racket's syntax-case has apparently been heavily extended) and guile, and is the R6RS macro system.
Personally, I don't like syntax-case. IMHO, it's overly complex, it throws away the standard macro abstraction for little benefit, and is generally a pain to use. But it's not objectively badly designed, and some people seem to like it (conveniently, this description, with some minimal modification, applies quite well to R6RS itself). You might be a person that likes it. I don't know. All I know is that I am not one of those people.
The other thing about Lisps is that if a programmer doesn't like the order of arguments or the function names or even the parenthesis, the language lets them change whatever it is they don't like and the changed features still have first class status. That's also one of the criticisms of Lisps.