Democrat senators worry Barrett will accurately interpret Constitution

 FEAR IMPROPER PRECEDENTS WILL BE OVERTURNED

CALL ACCURATE INTERPRETATIONS ,"JUDICIAL ACTIVISM"

It is clear from two days of hearings by the Senate Judicial committee that Amy Coney Barrett is well qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. That has never been the concern of the Democrat side of the hearings. Their concern is that she will make her decisions based on the Law and the Constitution. That she will not allow emotions or her own personal feelings or inclinations to sway her away from the meaning of the text at the time it was written. It is as it should be. The Constitution is the law for the Government. It is a restraint on congress and the government. It is strictly and clearly written that the government and congress only have the authority to regulate what is clearly defined by the constitution. All other matters, powers and authority is to remain with states and the people.

For two days their inference is that even wrongly decided cases are now precedent and while possibly in error they are now the law of the land. Making any changes or interpretation that overturns previous precedent is not in the best interest of the country. While overturning previous ruling of the court would be possibly uncomfortable and require an adjustment by the country, so did judgments that were made without conforming to the law. 

Much of the division in the country has been created by judicial activism that have found interpretations that took on power that was not granted to the federal 'government. The Constitution has a provision through the amendment process to make changes to the constitution possible. It is a lengthy process requiring consent of the states by a 2/3 majority. It is as it should be. 

It is true that many things are different since 1781. It is possible that some changes will need to be made. Women won the right to vote by the amendment process, by the time of its passing it was accepted by a strong majority of the people. It ended there, there was not decades of fighting and controversy.

The major concerns of the democrat senators is Roe vs Wade, legalizing abortion, which by the way had provisions concerning viability. They do not even want to conform to their own sacred precedent. Any overturning of this ruling will not outlaw abortion, but will take it out of the federal domain and put it were it belonged all along, with the states. We will then have different rules as we can imagine. The people of the states can sort them out and come to a peaceful satisfactory agreement for their state. It would be a blessing to get this out of the federal controversy.

Same for Gay marriage. The arrogance of 5 judges to redefine the definition of marriage that has been the basis of society for thousands of years. It could not even pass a referendum in California, yet 5 judges found a way to proclaim it a constitutional right.

There other concern is the Affordable care Act, again another sacred precedent without the foundation of the constitution, there is no provision in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to impose a national healthcare system. If the citizens want a national healthcare system then start the amendment process and get the 2/3 of the states to ratify and it will be the law of the land. It will also have the support of the whole country not just one party.

The Constitution and the bill of rights are remarkable documents. They created a system with certain rights for the states and certain enumerated rights defined for the Federal government. It was the fear of the founders that a power hungry federal bureaucracy would expand its power until it became a all encompassing authority for the country. They were so right and so wise to understand this. The Federal Court is supposed to be a buffer between the Federal government and the states and people. To have a peaceful united country we need a strict solid system of law, that is not redefined by cause of the moment, but by a process that ensures the acceptance of the vast majority.