It's really difficult to tell how a potential SCOTUS appointee might act until he gets on the bench. For one thing, he's bound by the Supreme Court's prior decisions in virtually everything he does up until that point, so the fact that he follows them proves nothing. And any intelligent conservative who has any hope of getting to the Supreme Court will be somewhat obscure about what he's really thinking until he gets onto the Court. Any justice with a demonstrable record of conservatism (particularly on abortion) has little hope of actually getting onto the Court.
If Bush appoints Gonzales, I'm guessing that it means he's satisfied that Gonzales will vote to overrule Roe if the opportunity arises. However, wishy-washy Bush may be on some issues, he is certainly not wishy-washy on abortion.
I've got to respectfully disagree, I think. There are a few people who have consistently shown they're interested in merely interpreting the law, not making the law. They're good, solid conservatives, and one of those people deserves this promotion.
Theoretically true, but practically speaking it's not. The Court did not follow even very recent precedent when they overturned the Texas sodomy law, but they weasel worded the decision in such a way that it appeared not to directly violate that precedent, but it did.