Driving through the country is terribly lonely, which is why I have my good friend talk radio to listen to! Unfortunately, at any given time, Rush Limbaugh is on at least two stations in the same place, and there might be -- maybe -- one Air America station. Sometimes I just get fed up with listening to Rush and I want to listen to people who agree with me for a change. I couldn't find that today, so I put up with conservative talk radio.

Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has stepped down, there's a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. So who will fill it? Conventional wisdom suggests that George W. Bush will nominate Alberto Gonzales, currently U.S. Attorney General, for the position. Gonzales is well qualified, having served on the Texas Supreme Court before. But he is disliked by both liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives -- especially neo-cons -- don't like him because he's too moderate. Gonzales is pro-choice and in favor of affirmative action, two positions that conservatives can't possibly agree on. Conservatives would rather have another Antonin Scalia on the court rather than an Alberto Gonzales. And who could blame them? Why put in a guy who actually objectively interprets the law when you could have a guy who lambasts his colleagues for bringing in extra-legal justifications for opinions while he does exactly the same thing that he berates his colleagues for? I'm speaking, of course, how Scalia despises using contemporary international values and other countries' court cases as support for U.S. Supreme Court opinions, while at the same time, the United States' Judeo-Christian (and Protestant Christian, at that) history and values are perfectly admissible as support for a court opinion. Conservatives want a conservatively activist justice, and if they tell you they don't, then they're lying. Conservatives can be just as activist as liberals, as witnessed by the Terri Schiavo incident, when all sorts of conservatives at every level of government tried to invent law that wasn't there, all for the sake of a glorified photo opportunity.

Liberals don't like Gonzales because he was one of the White House counsels who suggested that the U.S. didn't necessarily have to obey Geneva Convention guidelines about torture, since those who were captured were "enemy combatants" and not real soldiers. He actually referred to Geneva Convention prohibitions against torture as "quaint." Gonzales is a Bush yes-person. That's why he's in such a high office: Bush surrounded himself this second term with people who are loyal to him, people who will nod at whatever he says. Gonzales plays the Bush party-line, and that's somewhat frightening to liberals.

Is Gonzales a good choice? Of course! Gonzales will be a balancing force just as O'Connor was a balancing force. O'Connor was conservative, yes, but she was a moderate conservative. Packing another Scalia or Thomas on the court would be a terrible mistake, as it would skew the court's ideology to the right.

Bush appears to be leaning toward Gonzales, as he has suggested that people running ads denigrating Gonzales tone down their rhetoric. Bush likes Gonzales, and he doesn't want others to criticize him. My money's on Gonzales, and I think it will be money well-placed.