I think that is really what it comes down to: courts can't do anything if they can't interpret the law. The scope and extent of that interpretation should be f

I think that is really what it comes down to: courts can't do anything if they can't interpret the law. The scope and extent of that interpretation should be fairly limited -- the tendency of the common law system to accumulate "judge made law" can lead to inconsistencies (and certainly has, with regards to the 2nd Amendment) -- but how could law ever be so thorough and systematic as to obviate the need for such interpretation entirely?