I think you are both correct. Judges are not lawmakers but they sometimes come up with completely new interpretations of a law like for example Obergefell v Hod

I think you are both correct. Judges are not lawmakers but they sometimes come up with completely new interpretations of a law like for example Obergefell v Hodges, or Roe v Wade or citizens united etc. The current Qi is also a Supreme Court construct that has deep practical implications but is not reflected in law. I think one of the issues is that it is almost impossible to pass any controversial law in the US today, so it is hard for congress to come up with laws when judiciary changes interpretations. This is also why we have presidential orders.