Can you explain what the law on the books currently is, and how the majority opinion "absolutely does not" respect it?
> It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted.
Things have changed since a law was enacted by legislative fiat. The thesis behind those arguing the intended function of the judiciary is that any instance in the past where the judiciary has actually changed a law since it was enacted is considered abuse and not to be repeated.
Can you explain what the law on the books currently is, and how the majority opinion "absolutely does not" respect it?
> It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted.
Things have changed since a law was enacted by legislative fiat. The thesis behind those arguing the intended function of the judiciary is that any instance in the past where the judiciary has actually changed a law since it was enacted is considered abuse and not to be repeated.