The best way you can take away their ammo is to simply demand that a strict constructionist be appointed. When Appy Pappy demands we know everything about a nominees political views, it will turn the confirmation into a circus. We only need to know that he will uphold the Constitution - and, over the course of, say, twenty years on the bench, that will have a snowballing impact on rolling up the liberal agenda.
The Constitution is our home turf. All we need is for the game to be played there, not at the liberal home field of judicial activism, which should be imploded like Cinergy Field. Because if we keep that field around for our own agenda, sooner or later the libs will get it back.
Maybe you can help me out here. I'm certainly not a Constitutional Scholar (don't even play one on TV) - yet I've thrown around terms (like judicial activism, strict-constructionist, etc.) that I may not be totally familiar with.
My question to you (or anyone else who cares to respond) is this: "Judicial Activism" in 1973 gave us the abominable ROE V. WADE which, we might all agree, was the antithesis of "Strict Construction". So, by virtue of that fact is ROE V. WADE now considered as much a part of the Constitution as, say, the Bill of Rights?
And would overturning it be an example of "judicial activism" or "strict-construction"?
(BTW, I think you were the one that made a statement earlier that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the abortion question would return to the States. Do you think that would be a bad thing? I don't.)