There are easily 15-20 attorneys in my mid-sized city who have accomplished as much if not more as an attorney or managing partner as Harriet Miers has. Why shouldn't one of them be nominated?
Considered in the best light, Miers is a sad, barely adequate choice. Compared to Luttig, McConnell, or Rogers-Brown, Miers is woefully inadquate. Her nomination is an embarrassment to the Bush Administration, which is why Harry Reid is so high on it.
You nominate them. To whatever you please.
Your mid-sized city has 15-20 attorneys who manage firms of 400+ attorneys? Wow.
There is one aspect in which she likely is unique. Personally, I think having an experienced, successful litigator with significant case and trial experience is something that the Court could use. But as has been pointed out, such people rarely leave any record of their jurisprudential philosophy. Miers likely is the only such civil litigator whom Bush knows well enough to have confidence in her judicial philosophy. So if he wanted to appoint someone with more of a litigator's background, she's likely the best available choice. Anyone else would be a far riskier crapshoot in terms of their judicial philosophy.