I found this very difficult to follow.... but i'm going to suggest the following things as a way of a rebuttal.

- if there are legal methods by which laws can be changed and altered... either democratically or via stuffing the Supreme Court, then they must be debated under the rules and restrictions imposed by the process. I don't have to agree with the conclusion, but democracies require process.

- That legal mumbo-jumbo is in fact the constitutionally relevant pieces of law. You cannot dismiss them because they don't fit into your interpretation of how the world should be.

- You cannot 'stop the destruction, jail the liars' without enacting a non-democratic process. If the political left were to seize that power, they would become an authoritarian regime. That is precisely what you're accusing the other side of being.