Update: Some suggestion, logical I think, was made that O'Connor could stick around for the first round of cases, which might be decided by November or December (I assume). The Dems also have a reason to take her replacement slow, including causing the administration more trouble, after Roberts is probably (at least somewhat stupidly) going to be confirmed by a large majority. So, she might be on the Court (unlike Justice Marshall, her own health is not a problem) for a couple more months anyway.
First, in respect to this kind obit from the former clerk, I as an outsider concur. I don't share his ideological bent, but Rehnquist always seemed like a good guy and good Chief Justice. At least, in the sense of administration and so forth. The justices concurred, lib and conservative. Thus, the spleen against him from some fellow travelers of mine is not met by me quite as deep. But, I understand it, since it was earned in other ways.
Second, I really didn't think, as some did, that Scalia would become CJ. Roberts is a good replacement for Rehnquist -- he is sorta a younger Rehnquist in some ways (clerk, conservative executive official), though not in others (e.g., his advocacy work). The ideology appears to match, even (in some ways) Rehnquist's restraint in some ways vis-a-vis Scalia/Thomas. And, he probably will be confirmed by the beginning of the term, so no Stevens as acting CJ then.
A few problems. First, though it seems his personality fits the role, I wonder how his novice status will play as CJ -- Rehnquist was on the Court for awhile, while Burger and Warren was closer in age to their fellow justices and the latter had executive leadership experience. (Burger has problems in the CJ role).
Second, the O'Connor replacement is again a hot potato. I would not be shocked if the woman judge that some thought was going to replace O'Connor the first time is nominated this time. I think more pressure will be made for a woman or minority, and that judge was generally deemed fairly noncontroversial.
Anyway, the sentiment seems to be that O'Connor will still retire, in part to care for her husband. And, thus, there is no reason for her to stick around too long, since she would not hear cases that she would not vote on. The controversial rulings can be pushed back if a 4-4 vote is likely.
Overall, this works good for Bush. As to votes, this in effect makes Roberts confirmation less troubling on a "equal but not increased harm" approach (though making the records not released more important), while making the O'Connor replacement more open to scrutiny. Still, if Roberts is a bad choice, he still is now ... so vote against him.