On that I disagree. No one knows for a fact what Harriet Miers's character and judicial philosophy is except for herself. Not even Dubya. The best we can do is judge her by her actions and writings, and boy if there ain't much to go on.
Judicial track records sure mean a heck of a lot more than nothing. At once, it might tell us not to support her; it could also give us reason to. But there are no reasons to support her, other than that George W. Bush is fond of her. That's what's so frustrating about all this.
Once they go into those hallowed halls, don that black robe, look at themselves in the mirror and say "I have a job for life, nobody can stop me now" we have no say in the matter.
Souter was an unknown, but he had a judicial record that was deemed acceptable. Look how he turned out, quite possibly one of the worst Justices the Supreme Court has ever known.
Dubya comes closest to knowing those things about her since he has worked closely with her for years, first as his council in Texas and then in the WH. He has also had the opportunity to get a very close look at her judicial philosophy as she argued her position on the various judges that were vetted by her.
Dubya is also very well aware of how his father's legacy was tarnished by Souter and there is NO way he is going to make the same mistake.