>> Should the standard be "we nine unelecteds don't like it, and can read whatever we want into text that is actually silent on the issue"? > I mean that’s wha

>> Should the standard be "we nine unelecteds don't like it, and can read whatever we want into text that is actually silent on the issue"? > I mean that’s what every ruling is. No, it clearly isn't. If it was, you might as well abolish the other branches of government, because the government is really an oligarchy of judges. > The court exists because the text isn’t clear. No text is clear enough to handle reality. There are always exceptions, shifting definitions, changing technology. No document can be the full representative of its meaning - a system of rules based on documents will always have a layer of interpretation built on top of it That's true, but only to a point. Take it too far, and you are just using an oligarchy of judges to bypass the legislative process.