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.
You're not understanding my point. I'm not talking about whether the S.Ct. is bound by its own decisions. I'm talking about whether a lower court judge, or a state court judge is bound by a Supreme Court decision. Clearly he is. If a lower court judge is dealing with an abortion case, he has no choice but to take Roe as a given. So if the judge applies Roe, does that mean he's pro-abortion?
No. He has no choice. He can't overrule the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, if you appoint him to the Supreme Court, then he's no longer bound by Roe, to the extent that he might vote to overrule it.
Given these realities, it is difficult to determine from decisions by a potential nominee how they will vote when they get on the Court.
You really have to know them personally, to understand what their philosophy is.
And Bush does know Gonzales personally, so I am guessing that if he appoints Gonzales, it's because he knows that Gonzales will represent the judicial philosophy that Bush says he wants.