The Comittee of 2000 vs. The Republic

The struggle over Miers continues in earnest as the rift seems to grow:

Hugh Hewitt continues his defense and Marvin Olasky his "Centered on Christ" idea , as Peggy Noonan and Robert Novak weigh in on the opposite side.

I like Olasky's idea (as a believer) but does just that really assist in deciphering a nominee's judicial philosophy? I am tending to agree with my old professor Mark Smith in regards to his comments about "Christians wanting an activist on the court" and how that would play out in cases of Roe v. Wade and such, cause the matter would go back to the states - and some would inevitably have abortion still. To clarify, I'm as against abortion as they come, but this battle may never be completely "won" because of how things work in terms of the constitution, and I'm not about to mess with the Constitution - I'm not a revisionist. For those that would make the case that a life is more important than law...I ask this - are we to legislate morality, is that the function of government?

On top of all this, I don't know if the way things are being gone about to close the gap in the rift are the best either...

Thanks to Captain's Quarters for pointing the way...

MSM seems to be relishing this, as well as the Dems I'd imagine...