There is only one Antonin Scalia, and I doubt that you can find any jurist in the United States who you can say with certainty is "like" Scalia. There are 7 justices sitting on the Supreme Court currently who were appointed by Republicans. They were all appointed based on their conservative judicial record and credentials. Only 3 of them turned out to be conservatives, though.
One of them, Justice Stevens, is the most liberal member of the Court. Another, Justice Souter, is the second most liberal member of the Court.
The reason why these guys were appointed under the mistaken belief that they were conservatives is simple: The Presidents who appointed them relied on their conservative credentials, and did not know them personally.
If you really want to know that the guy you're appointing is a conservative, then you've got to know him personally. You've got to know how he thinks. The reason for that is that conservative jurists believe they are bound by the law, irrespective of their own personal beliefs. As a result, their opinions and other writings do not reflect their personal views, but rather their interpretations of the law.
I don't know if Gonzales is a conservative, or just a "moderate." But I am certain that Bush knows, and that if he appoints Gonzales, then it's because he feels comfortable that Gonzales will live up to the description that Bush himself gave for the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice: One like Scalia and Thomas who interprets the law and does not make it.
Then you're not knowledgeable enought to participate in this conversation, because Gonzales has made his beliefs clear through the friend-of-the-court briefs that the DoJ has filed, or declined to file. He's pro-racial preferences and he doesn't care about the abuse of eminent domain. I guess for you, if Bush nominates him, it doesn't matter what he believes. For blind followers, Bush is right - even when he does wrong.