I have no problem with Stryker spending his money to express his views (and you love it, even though you have a problem with conservatives who spend money likewise -- so put the shoe on your own foot).

On the other hand, there has never been anything like this petition in terms of the number of objects it addresses (there's a legal doctrine on that, actually, which will certainly be one of the challenges if they come up with the signatures), its complexity, and the very things this petition seeks to do.  We - or at least I - am disagreeing with the content of the petition, not the process.  They have a right to circulate it - but they have to follow the same rules everyone else does, are subject to the same allegations of fraud (and nothing has been proven to my satisfaction, YET), and the content of their petition is open to debate. This petition seeks to "re-stack the court" in a similar way to FDR's attempt in the 1930s to change the number of justices - that's what makes it anti-democratic (not the fact that it is using the petition process). Don't confuse my disagreement with the content with any claim that they don't have a right to attempt this.