Confirm them has an interview with Jan Crawford Greenberg, Author of the book "Supreme Conflict." In it she makes her guesses on the next Supreme Court Nominee:

"Janice Rogers Brown or Maureen Mahoney. Now I know you’re asking how in the world I could possibly mention those two very different contenders in one breath, right? Ok, here's why: It all depends on which justice leaves and when. President Bush will tap a solid judicial conservative (i.e., Brown) . . . Judge Brown would be an exciting nominee: She's getting very high marks from colleagues on the D.C. Circuit, and her experience, compelling life story and demeanor (she's fast on her feet and would be a terrific witness) would present those moderate southern Democrats (there are still a few of them) with a very difficult choice.

"Granted, it would be a huge fight, especially if she'd be replacing Justices Stevens or Ginsburg. But she just might get through. Remember that Clarence Thomas was confirmed to replace Thurgood Marshall in 1991 by a Democratic-controlled Senate, with 11 Democrats and 41 Republicans voting for him. . . .

"If no one goes this year, Bush will be hard pressed to nominate Brown for a vacancy in late 2007 or 2008. If the nominee's controversial, as Brown would be, Democrats could just delay, delay, delay and hope President Clinton or Obama or Edwards or Gore or (insert name here) would fill the seat. . . . The closer we get to 2008, the better are Maureen Mahoney's odds, because she's a conservative who could get confirmed. . . . Mahoney is incredibly impressive as a lawyer and advocate; people who call her the "female John Roberts" aren’t too far off the mark. . . Mahoney may not be a social conservative (neither is Estrada, for that matter), but let's not forget that Mahoney IS a judicial conservative. She’s no Anthony Kennedy. She would be the kind of justice—smart, disciplined, skilled-- I’d suspect John Roberts would appreciate having on the Court for the next 20 or 30 years. And she could get confirmed in late 2007/early 2008."