I don't think I'd go that far. The US legal system has been pretty consistent with respecting Case Law when making new decisions, and it's rare when a landmark

I don't think I'd go that far. The US legal system has been pretty consistent with respecting Case Law when making new decisions, and it's rare when a landmark decision is made without any precedent. Interpretation of the constitution generally means building on previous interpretations, which means you'll always get some "drift" away from the original intention (case in point the second amendment, which has drifted very far from the original "well-regulated militia" framing towards inalienable, unquestionable gun rights.) But the drift should typically be incremental in nature, and we've seen few examples of purely "novel" interpretations by the courts.