The Wall Street Journal makes the argument -- and makes it well -- that Bush should appoint a strong conservative to replace Justice O'Connor. In my view, these are especially strong points:
1. Bush ran for office saying he would choose someone like Justices Scalia and Thomas.
2. There has been a strong tendency in recent decades for moderate conservatives to move to a liberal position on the Court, so conservatives have already been deprived of their share of the sort of justices they favor and are quite reasonable to guard against this with a new appointment.
3. Re Gonzales: "as former White House counsel and now head of the Justice Department, [he] would have to recuse himself from most if not all of the war-on-terror cases." The threat of 4-4 decisions alone is reason to oppose him. (Experts on recusal: is this true?)
4. "Borking" is wrong and should be confronted.