An indication of where we're at
The right does not consider Attorney General/torture apologist Alberto Gonzales conservative enough to be on the Supreme Court:
The president has to know that conservatives, his supporters in good times and bad, would be appalled and demoralized by a Gonzales appointment. It would place his would-be successors in the Senate in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between angering conservatives by voting for Gonzales and saying no to him. If Democrats attack Gonzales — and it is reasonable to expect that they will attack almost any Bush nominee — conservatives will not rally to his defense.
What should Democrats do if Gonzales is nominated? Some have suggested that Gonzales would be acceptable, but Armando says no:
I may be in the minority here, but I will vigorously oppose his confirmation.
Of course the condoning of torture marks Gonzales as morally reprehensible.
But, even if one is only going to look at this cynically, Gonzales can not be trusted. We THINK he is a moderate. We THINK he'll support the right to choose. We THINK he'll support affirmative action.
But how do we know? What has Gonzales done to earn the belief that he won't be a patsy in the hands of a Scalia?
Nothing as far as I'm concerned. Indeed the opposite is true.
Mark me down as a vigorous NO on Gonzales, should it come to that.