I got quite a few guffaws two weeks ago when I "guaranteed" that Harriet Miers would never testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Many scoffed when I "promised" that Miers would withdraw her nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some suggested I had gone out on a limb by making such a certain prediction – leaving no wiggle room for myself whatsoever.

Well, since I'm on a roll, I thought I would make a prediction about her replacement.

Now, keep in mind, this is an educated guess. This is not a promise. This is not a guarantee. Don't bet the farm on this one.

It is partly hunch. It is partly the result of studying the list of possible nominees and my knowledge of the character and mind of George W. Bush. It is also based on some insights we have gained into the president's criteria through the Miers' debacle.

Do you remember what James Dobson said he was told by Karl Rove about Bush's requirements for the O'Connor seat?

Dobson said the president insisted that the pick had to be a woman.

That's it. No other qualifications were mentioned. Rove said many highly qualified contenders had to be scratched because they did not wear skirts.

So, is it safe to assume that standard is still in place?

Is it safe to assume that Bush is sticking with this important affirmative action principle?

Is it safe to assume that Bush will still go with a woman?

If he does, here's my guess about who that woman will be: Maureen Mahoney.

Maureen who?

Maureen Mahoney.

She is 50 years old, a lawyer in private practice – one of the credentials Bush said attracted him to Miers.

She is often described as the female version of Chief Justice John Roberts, the man selected by Bush twice – first to replace O'Connor and later to replace William Rehnquist as the head of the Supreme Court.

Obviously, if he liked Roberts, he should like the female version of him.

Mahoney clerked for Rehnquist and she has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

But here's another clue for you all: She also served as deputy solicitor general under Kenneth Starr, the establishment fixer and close friend and political ally of Roberts.

It was Starr who engineered – duplicitously, I might add – the nomination of O'Connor during the Reagan administration. It was Starr who conspired with Roberts to minimize conservative influence in the Reagan Justice Department. It was Starr and Roberts who lied about O'Connor's record as a legislator in Arizona to fool President Reagan into thinking she was a gal after his own heart.

Whenever the establishment wants something, it turns to Starr to help make it a reality. Even conservatives, whom he has warred with for 30 years, don't begin to comprehend he is their enemy.

Conservatives were fooled into believing the lie that Kenneth Starr was appointed as independent counsel during Bill Clinton's administration to clean up the corruption in the White House. He was not. He was appointed to cover it up. And he did a heckuva job. He is still feted by gullible conservatives for what they perceive to have been a valiant effort to bring Clinton to justice. It was never his intent. He's a cover-up artist from the word "go."

Shouldn't we expect Starr's fingerprints to be on the next nominee?

He helped bring us O'Connor. He helped bring us Roberts. And I think it will be one of his proteges – another woman – who fills the O'Connor seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mahoney is perhaps most famous for representing the University of Michigan before the Supreme Court defending its indefensible affirmative-action program. She wasn't just a hired gun. She really believed in the case. She really believed that government agencies should discriminate against people based on race. She really believed that was constitutional and moral.

She told the university news service: "I'm a Republican, and there's a common misconception that all Republicans oppose affirmative action. I care deeply about the issue."

Mahoney is no stranger to nominations for federal judicial posts. The first President Bush named her to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but the Senate did not act on her nomination before the end of Bush's term.

She seems to be the favorite of liberal analysts hoping for another stealth Supreme Court nominee – someone along the lines of David Souter or Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor. She was No. 1 on Slate.com's "shortlist" of possible Republican nominees who believe in "moderation."

Oh, and by the way, her long list of clients includes the government of Saudi Arabia.

I'd say she's nearly a shoo-in.

Remember the name: Maureen Mahoney. Remember where you heard it first.

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.