Razzle Dazzle on SCOTUS?

Patrick Ruffini tells conservatives to take the usual, considered arguments for gathering an up and down vote on any nominee and RAM it. Instead,

* An America where your children can't pledge allegiance to the United States of America, Under God (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow)
* An America where gay marriage is imposed by judicial fiat (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), and if the people of your state say no, they are silenced (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning)
* An America where wealthy developers can take away your home (Kelo v. City of New London)
* A Banana Republic where elections can be manipulated after the fact to produce the desired outcome (Bush v. Gore; the Dino Rossi litigation)
* An America where the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are more likely to be set free, possibly to conduct further attacks.

How do we "strict constructionists" frame our "agenda?" As an anti-agenda. As one that opposes the imposition of any particular worldview through the Courts. As a simple sentiment, animated by faith in the body politic, and borne of 229 years of democracy in America:

Let the people decide.

I would get rid of 'strict constructionist' [visions of a spinster schoolmarm with hair in a bun...] and substitute objective originalist. The lack of vision in the Republican Senate is staggering so they will do nothing of the sort.