From Confirm Them:

"For the first time since all the speculation began, we have come to a rare holding pattern where the names of one day have not suddenly shifted. Robert Novak is reporting that Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers are in the running.

I’m still hearing Corrigan and Alito, with Williams as a back up. Several I have spoken to say the President has considered Miers, but that the White House has calculated that it would have trouble holding the base given that Miers is more of an enigma than Roberts. The White House has made a calculation that the Democrats are going to fight anyone who is picked, so they are treading carefully to present an exceptionally qualified candidate that the public will find palatable."

Expect an announcement Monday morning. Until then it's a speculation carnival.

And this, which I could not have said better:

"...No one should take seriously the crocodile-teary pleas from Senate Democrats like Patrick Leahy for a nominee who will "unite" the country, or requests that President Bush "fulfill his promise" to be a "uniter not a divider." The Democrats could easily have "united" with the President, after all, by supporting John Roberts, one of the most decent, respected, and brilliant nominees in history. The fact is, given the givens, there are no nominees who can or will "unite" the country. We are divided, and we disagree about many things that matter. Because (unfortunately, perhaps) the Supreme Court has become the arena where our disagreements about things that matter play out, it is unsurprising that we disagree about who should sit on the Supreme Court. The President's job is not to chase after a "unity" that the Senate Democrats would not, in any event, permit him to achieve, but to keep his promises and to take care of the Constitution by nominating someone who believes in judicial modesty and the rule of law."