Not the senators, but yes, I think the judges will do their work based on the Constitution and the law, and not their personal beliefs. I know they can because I have seen it, and because, as the head of various committees through the decades, and as a business manager, I have had to make objective decisions that went against my personal beliefs and desires. It is part of the job for an ethical person in authority, but most especially for a judge.
Not being judgmental, but perhaps your core concern with it is because the Constitution is basically a conservative document, and adhering to it does not serve liberal goals.

Your opinions of Scalia and Barr are just that. Opinions with no substance. My opinion, just as valid as yours, is that both are ethical men.
And yes, the Constitution is a conservative document. You are right when you say it was "liberal" at the time, because it was indeed a progressive ground-breaking document. But the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive' no longer mean new and ground-breaking. They no longer mean innovative and beneficial to the citizens like they did in the late 1800s. They now stand for manipulation, and lies, and deceit. They stand for 'win at any cost'. They stand for intolerance and hatred. We can thank the left for that.
The Constitution was NEVER intended to be a living document in the way you are stating it. It was intended to be rock solid and unbendable EXCEPT through established procedures, such as amendments. Establish procedures the left has been ignoring and working around because they can not succeed any other way. The President has not been ignoring or damaging the Constitution. The left and their democrat cronies have been doing that for 60 years.
Rights for everyone? Nonsense. You fight to replace one set of leaders with your own, who have demonstrated for those 60 years that they will NOT, given control, respect the individual's safe guards found in the Constitution. You are trying to put the wolves in charge of the flock because you don't like how the shepards are doing their jobs.

Your opinions of Scalia and Barr are just that. Opinions with no substance. My opinion, just as valid as yours, is that both are ethical men.
And yes, the Constitution is a conservative document. You are right when you say it was "liberal" at the time, because it was indeed a progressive ground-breaking document. But the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive' no longer mean new and ground-breaking. They no longer mean innovative and beneficial to the citizens like they did in the late 1800s. They now stand for manipulation, and lies, and deceit. They stand for 'win at any cost'. They stand for intolerance and hatred. We can thank the left for that.
The Constitution was NEVER intended to be a living document in the way you are stating it. It was intended to be rock solid and unbendable EXCEPT through established procedures, such as amendments. Establish procedures the left has been ignoring and working around because they can not succeed any other way. The President has not been ignoring or damaging the Constitution. The left and their democrat cronies have been doing that for 60 years.
Rights for everyone? Nonsense. You fight to replace one set of leaders with your own, who have demonstrated for those 60 years that they will NOT, given control, respect the individual's safe guards found in the Constitution. You are trying to put the wolves in charge of the flock because you don't like how the shepards are doing their jobs.

The left's biggest problem with the Constitution is that it is a negative document. By that, I mean it tells the federal government what it can't do. It is stated that the powers of the federal government are few and well enumerated. That means the federal government does not have unlimited powers and what powers it has are limited to what is spelled out in the Constitution (and its amendments). If the power is not expressly given to the federal government nor expressly prohibited to the states and/or the people, it is reserved to the states and the people. L*****ts don't like this because they can't do wh**ever they want, this is why we need orginalists on the Supreme Court. It would also be nice to get people in Congress that actually have read and understand the Constitution.
Btw, you do know congress has another meaning of a sexual nature and they sure seem determined to do it to us.

The left's biggest problem with the Constitution is that it is a negative document. By that, I mean it tells the federal government what it can't do. It is stated that the powers of the federal government are few and well enumerated. That means the federal government does not have unlimited powers and what powers it has are limited to what is spelled out in the Constitution (and its amendments). If the power is not expressly given to the federal government nor expressly prohibited to the states and/or the people, it is reserved to the states and the people. L*****ts don't like this because they can't do wh**ever they want, this is why we need orginalists on the Supreme Court. It would also be nice to get people in Congress that actually have read and understand the Constitution.
Btw, you do know congress has another meaning of a sexual nature and they sure seem determined to do it to us.

The left's biggest problem with the Constitution is that it is a negative document. By that, I mean it tells the federal government what it can't do. It is stated that the powers of the federal government are few and well enumerated. That means the federal government does not have unlimited powers and what powers it has are limited to what is spelled out in the Constitution (and its amendments). If the power is not expressly given to the federal government nor expressly prohibited to the states and/or the people, it is reserved to the states and the people. L*****ts don't like this because they can't do wh**ever they want, this is why we need orginalists on the Supreme Court. It would also be nice to get people in Congress that actually have read and understand the Constitution.
Btw, you do know congress has another meaning of a sexual nature and they sure seem determined to do it to us.

First, I never said it was a "Liberal" never mentioned Liberal at all, I said progressive, there's a difference between the two. Many, as yourself, use the terms interchangeably, they are not synonyms. While the Liberals believe in balancing liberty with social justice. They tend to support gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, protecting the environment and improving e******y. They allow certain liberties to be sacrificed (like not allowing landlords to refuse someone based on their race). Alternatively, Liberal can also be used (usually negatively) to describe someone who believes that the government can and should use tax dollars to play an active role in improving communities and promoting the general welfare of the country.
Progressive do generally agree with this philosophy but they also additionally share a general belief in the interconnections of individuals and why they're of the opinion the government should collect taxes and also spend it to improve communities.
Progressives recognize problems and try to define and address the systemic rules, laws and traditions that enable and empower the problems in the first place. Additionally, Progressives share a general belief in the interconnections of individuals and the philosophy that “when you hurt, I hurt."
Liberal... technically refers to having trust in the free market to yield the best results, in most or all industries. But that’s not how it’s used in a modern context. Actually, they are quite far from the thought of a socialistic government, that's a pure lie, that is fabricated to make people afraid of t***sitioning to the left from the right. Unfortunately, it's a harmful lie as it pins American's against American's, as we've all witnessed with posts here from the right, disparaging all who are not on the Trump far leaning right.
My Response: You are correct. You did not say "liberal". You are also correct in that I, and others, tend to use the terms interchangeably. As I see it, the differences in the two are minor, and the similarities major.
But I will accept your definitions, in general. Liberals and progressives also exhibit a lot of additional unsavory traits that you failed to mention. i won't enumerate them here. We all know them.

You said:
So you see progressivism has not changed, they're intentions are still at its core and that is btw to make a better America.
My Response:
In my opinion you are not just wrong, but abysmally wrong. You are drawing a conclusion, based on your definitions, that leave out the tactics employed by the left, with the hearty approval of the progressives...assuming there is actually a difference in the two. The left wants an America with them in total control, and them instructing every citizen in the "correct" way to live and what actions are acceptable.
They want their definition of "social justice" to be the law of the land. I do not.

You said:
What do you mean in the way I am stating it? I knew you would disagree with the phrase of a living document, it is and that's a fact, look up what a living document is. What makes it a living document ARE the AMENMENTS!
My Response:
Then by all means USE the amendments! To that extent, if you choose to use the adjective "living", I have no problem with that. What I, and conservatives like me, strongly oppose is treating the Constitution like it is subject to interpretation based on the desires of society, or current culture mores, or the opinions of politicians. If it needs changing, fine. Propose, pass, and implement an amendment. But the left can't get what they want through the amendment process, so they violate and/or reinterpret the Constitution to get what they want. Primarily by using activist judges. I want NONactivist judges who follow the Constitution.

You said:
You sit there and have the gall to talk about me in other posts and how insulting I am as you once again insult, offend, and disparage half the citizens in this country with your h**eful rhetoric.
My Response:
What h**eful rhetoric? Apparently disagreeing with you, and substantiating it, is now h**eful. Explain to me, please, how I have insulted, offended, and disparaged half the citizens. I am quite aware that sometimes I get sarcastic, or give in to ridiculing silly posts, but I address the POSTS. Only rarely the person doing the posting, and then in response to THEIR insults. I have seen you do the same. And by the way, the comments I occasionally make are extremely mild compared to most others on OPP. Especially from some on the left.

You said:
The left may not like the president for his words and actions but we don't go on this tirade spewing diarrhea from the mouth over other Americans.
My Response:
Oh, really? Should I present some posts from airforceone, kemmer, kevyn, tintop, rhumitoid, or any of a number of others? Now, please identify when and where I "spewed diarrhea for the mouth over other Americans". No, No. I insist. I give my wholehearted permission to copy as many of such posts on this thread as you want, so we can all look at them together.

And finally, you ended with:
After this I'm done with you, I never insulted you at all, your the insulter again, and posts are not worth replying to, stew in your ignorance.