Exactly. The AG in 1973 did not foment Roe v. Wade, and the one who's confirmed in 2004 will not be able to negate it.
A better use of time and energy is to keep the pressure on Arlen Specter, either to keep him from chairing Senate Judiciary, or failing that, to convince him to behave himself when grilling future nominees.
The lstter is already working, as Specter publicly backpedals on earlier statements. I credit National Review Online for much of this.
Ted Olson weighed in with a strong brief against racial preferences, arguing that discrimination cannot be used to achieve racial diversity. Bush agreed to intervene, but Gonzales started carving up Olson's language. This was not a matter of the president presiding over a debate between Olson and Gonzales. The solicitor general never got to talk to the president, except through Gonzales.Gonzales's views on affirmative action became widely known in Washington last year when, at a meeting of the conservative Federalist Society, he announced his support of preferences.
He had pulled the Texas court leftward, including decisions favorable to trial lawyers on tort cases. What most disturbed conservatives was his majority opinion invalidating a statute requiring parental notification of abortion by a minor. Democratic senators who last year blocked confirmation of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen as a federal appellate judge repeatedly cited Gonzales's attack on her minority opinion as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."
That alone led prominent Catholic conservatives and other foes of abortion to inform the White House that Gonzales is unacceptable for the high court.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030123.shtml