"that constitutes a libertarian-fundamentalist rewriting of how American jurisprudence works"
Also known as accurately representing what the document literally says. I find it really amusing that people pretend that the constitution is some vague indecipherable document that requires court cases to "interpret". It isn't, its written in quite plain english.
I'm sorry that the facts of reality, and the ultimate legal document in the country, disagree with your ideology. I'm sorry that your ideology leaves you ill equipped to make a counter argument, and thus instead choose to characterize me personally.
The definition of libertarianism is "Someone who believes in the nonaggression principle." I'm not afraid to stand behind my principles, though you have not mentioned what ideology leads you to attack me in this way. Whatever it is, obviously you want to initiate force against innocent people[1], so, by definition, you'll never have the moral high ground.
I am, however, quite fascinated that, despite people being obviously against the non-aggression principle, that I've yet to meet one who can make a counter argument against it. I really wonder why that is so. I can defend my arguments against attacks on them, but always it is the case that opponents attack me, instead of my arguments. The only possible reason I can think of for that is that my opponents follow ideologies the are not based on principle, but are instead a collection of beliefs that they swallow whole. That would explain why they cannot defend them, or construct counter arguments to philosophically based positions, such as mine.
All they seem to be capable of mustering is name calling-- like you called me "far out" "uninformed" "wrong", "misleading", "fundamentalist", etc, without never once backing up these claims, making them essentially pure ad hominem.
If your ideology is strong enough to hold such sway over your thinking, why doesn't it provide you with arguments you can make on the facts, and to the point?
Calling me names is really easy. But who do you expect to persuade that way? People who already agree with you?
[1] Because if you didn't, you'd have no motivation to hate libertarianism with such fervor. All libertarian positions derive from this principle, and this principle can be derived philosophically from basic moral premises. When I first became aware of it, I figured it would quickly sweep the nation-- as the idea of not using violence against the innocent seems compellingly right. However, I've been forced to accept that many people, either because they are taught it, or maybe just by their nature, actually do want to use violence against other people for their own profit. And that's sad. But its also embarrassing and so nobody wants to admit it, and so maybe that is why you chose to call me names.