"What Has One Got to Do with the Other?", cont'd

Hillel notes his concern that Ms. Miers's opposition to abortion (that is, her past support for the Human Life Amendment) "is being used as a proxy for her likely vote on Roe v. Wade."  He asks:

Conservatives have always chided liberals for confusing policy preferences with jurisprudence; indeed, this is one of the biggest knocks on Roe.  But to the extent conservatives take the cue about a nominee's likely votes on jurisprudential questions from her policy views, aren't they doing the same thing?

I don't think they are (doing the same thing).  Or, at least, they might not be.  It's one thing -- isn't it? -- to think, based on observations, experience, and anecdotes, that anti-abortion views likely correlate with a view that, as a matter of constitutional law, Roe was wrong.  It seems like another thing, though, to think that the reason Roe was wrong is because abortion is wrong.  I would hope that all those who believe -- as I do -- that abortion is wrong and that Roe was wrong would also want an anti-Roe Justice to have reasons for her position other than "abortion is wrong."  What do you think, Hillel?