It's not even an analogy - it's a restatement of your position. You refused the constitutional argument on the basis that judges are evil. An analogy would be that if Hitlery Clinton voted to support the war in Iraq, and Hitlery is evil, then the war in Iraq must be opposed even if it is the right thing to do.
In fact, most of your statements have been supportive of the doctrine of a "living constitution", the doctrine big-government leftists. Are you a leftist?
See- that is deceitful - a mis-characterization twisted into an ad hominem attack. I have been arguing from the constructionist view including the use of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas for case sources, all constructionists. A constructionist view is also that of keeping government out of situations it doesn't belong. A constructionist includes respecting the Constitution at a state level even if actions at the federal have been have been otherwise. A position in direct opposition to that you have stated.
Instead, you have taken a position of convenience. The Constitution and precedence are fine (to justify some anti-big government) should they agree with your views but wrong if they hinder them (Article VI, Amend 1 & 14). You have stated views to the far right socially, but have advocated intrusive government as long as it is the right kind of intrusive government.