I don't recall the DNC being on the ballot anywhere.

Here's the problem with these attacks on judges. The judicial activism that people decry doesn't really involve lawmaking in the ordinary sense. That is, judges aren't legislating from the bench when they decide these controversial constitutional cases. Rather, judges are enforcing limitations on the authority of the state to legislate. Judges are telling the state what it can do; they aren't regulating the conduct of private citizens in the way that normal laws do.

Hopefully, everyone can agree that a legitimate state is limited in its power to enact and enforce rules of conduct; furthermore, I think everyone would agree that some principle of equality should constrain the way governments distribute the burdens and benefits produced through state action. Law must be distinguishable from brute force, which means that ultimately rules/force must meet certain normative (i.e., moral) criteria to constitute "law" in the politically legitimate sense.

Now, given this commonly shared understanding of law in liberal democracies, some kind of institution must exist to review state action and ensure that such action operates within the constraints imposed by political legitimacy.
That institution in our society is the court. And, we have the added benefit of a written constitution which specifically allocates political power and enumerates certain rights to assist judges in exercise of judicial review.

So, courts provide the important function of judicial review in a legal system, and in some cases that will involve the invalidation of laws that reflect the majoritarian will. But, the judge isn't making law, really. He is applying the law (as prescribed by constitutional language and more general principles of due process and equality) to legislative and executive branches.

As far as Roe and its progeny is concerned, although I am staunchly pro-choice, I think it's a terribly written opinion. I think a much better case could be made for the constitutional right to abortion, but I concede that restrictions on abortion are not obviously unconstitutional in the way anti-sodomy laws are, for instance.

But, I'm sticking up for the larger principle of judicial review and the anti-majoritarian function of political rights.

Living with all that anger must be exhausting. Willing to screw over your family, children, grandchildren, parents, and friends to make a point and get revenge for perceived wrongs is just plain stupid.

That's a perfectly good argument against Hillary Clinton becoming president, because she will appoint judges that will support Roe, Brown, etc. If you want strict constructionist judges, McCain is your man, and you should have voted for him regardless of whatever attachment you have to Hillary Clinton as a personality.