HispanicBusiness

That criticism of Gonzales is just one factor that could influence Bush if he soon has the chance to make his first appointment to the high court. Other factors: pressure from Hispanic groups to pick a Hispanic other than Gonzales, and a vow by Senate Democrats to oppose any court nominee whom they view as too extreme in his or her views.

Gonzales is one of a few prominent lawyers who are on various "short lists" of potential court nominees kept by administration officials.

Others include J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson, veteran judges of the Richmond, Va.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit; Judge Samuel Alito of the 3rd Circuit in Newark, N.J.; Judge Emilio Garza of the 5th Circuit in San Antonio; California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown; and Olson.

Some conservatives also are touting Miguel Estrada, a native of Honduras and a former Justice Department lawyer who has been nominated by Bush to serve on the U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C. Democrats are protesting his lower court nomination, so Estrada would be a long shot for any high court appointment this year.

For conservatives who would oppose a Gonzales nomination, speaking out against him "is a risky strategy, because Judge Gonzales is clearly a very powerful force in the administration," says Klain, who was an adviser to Democrat Al Gore when Gore lost to Bush in the 2000 election. That is likely why most of Gonzales' harshest critics, especially those in the administration, decline to speak publicly. And those who do speak up cast their words carefully.

"I am very disappointed in his position in the Michigan case, but he has done a fine job as White House counsel," says Todd Gaziano, a legal director at the Heritage Foundation, a policy group that is home to staunch conservatives.

"If it's true that Judge Gonzales played a strong role in weakening the Justice Department's criticism of racial preferences, then we would have very serious concerns about nominating (him) to the Supreme Court," says Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes affirmative action.

Gonzales supports allowing universities to consider an applicant's race in order to ensure diverse campuses. But White House insiders say that Bush already was inclined to agree with that stance, even as he opposed Michigan's specific policies. Gonzales did not return calls seeking comment for this story.

Much of conservatives' disapproval of Gonzales likely has less to do with the Michigan case than with their fear that a Bush nominee could be "another Souter."

Thirteen years ago, then-White House chief of staff John Sununu called Souter's nomination a "home run" for conservatives. But today, Souter is firmly in the high court's liberal bloc, supporting abortion rights, affirmative action and a high wall of separation between church and state.

A Republican president and the GOP takeover of the Senate in the November elections probably increased the chances that Rehnquist would step down. He was put on the bench by Republican President Nixon in 1972 and elevated to chief by Republican President Reagan in 1986.

If Bush were to replace the chief with Gonzales, he could actually move the divided court -- which now has five conservative justices who generally vote as a bloc -- to the left.

The other justices who might be considering retirement are Sandra Day O'Connor, 72, a conservative who sometimes votes with the court's more liberal justices; and John Paul Stevens, 82, who votes with the liberals. Neither has shown signs of slowing down.

If Rehnquist were to retire, the White House might consider elevating one of the sitting justices to chief and then putting a new member of the court into that person's seat. Such a move could give Bush a chance to appease competing constituencies.