[oldalum]

I think it is hypocritical to use a strict contructionist argument to force the replacement of a strict contructionist Supreme Court justice with a judicial activist.

I don't see how this "strict constructionist argument" is "forcing" anything of the sort you suggest. It applies to the nomination of a replacement justice, not to his or her approval by the Senate, which seems highly unlikely for any "judicial activist" if one is nominated. And of course the argument would apply equally strongly if the parties' current positions were reversed--a good test of whether a particular argument is motivated by political partisanship of the moment.

What I find hypocritical is to endorse strict constructionism as the highest and best form of constitutional interpretation and in the next breath completely violate it.

[oldalum]

I think it is hypocritical to use a strict contructionist argument to force the replacement of a strict contructionist Supreme Court justice with a judicial activist.

I don't see how this "strict constructionist argument" is "forcing" anything of the sort you suggest. It applies to the nomination of a replacement justice, not to his or her approval by the Senate, which seems highly unlikely for any "judicial activist" if one is nominated. And of course the argument would apply equally strongly if the parties' current positions were reversed--a good test of whether a particular argument is motivated by political partisanship of the moment.

What I find hypocritical is to endorse strict constructionism as the highest and best form of constitutional interpretation and in the next breath completely violate it.