I agree with you. But I also believe that most ideologues lose the battle. The reality is that in this day and age, the courts operate in a manner that our founding fathers didn't intend. It is an oligarchy. It is what Jefferson feared. That being true... we've got to nominate people on our side. People who will vote the way we want them to.
I remember getting my first speeding ticket in 1976 and telling my dad "that cop made a comment about the length of my hair and then wrote me at ticket. I wasn't going that fast and he would have let me off if I was older or more clean cut". And my dad says... well welcome to reality. You can complain about the way things are suppose to be or you can accept the way they are, and then work within that framework. These days.... I'm an accept they way they are, and then try to win within that framework type of guy.
If advocating open government, and decisions based on knowledge and reason instead of stealth and emotion, then I am proud to wear the label "ideologue." I'm in the company of the founders, who advocated a limited and transparent government that operated with the blessing and support of the people it serves.
If that battle is lost, we will become mere subjects of an impenetrable system. And you may well be right. The battle may well be lost, hustled on its way by well intentioned people who are willing to stoop to stealth to "get their way."
These days.... I'm an accept they way they are, and then try to win within that framework type of guy.
I urge you to reconsider accepting "stealth" as a legitimate social/political tactic, and consider that perhaps reasoned discussion of issues and process on their merits is better for the health and well being of our social structure.
This why Republicans continue to be disappointed with their nominees. A judicial activist that leans toward conservative causes is a very unreliable vote and not a person you want on the court. Judicial activists of any flavor are unstable and unreliable.
What you want is someone that has a track record of basing judicial decisions on sound judicial philosophy. It doesn't matter if the ruling went against a conventional conservative position if was based on what the law actually said and on originalist philosophy.
A good definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The republicans have been very stupid with their nominations - they have been lucky with a very small number but more often than not, they make bad decisions.