> Case law is the only place where the details of how copyright are applied to software are hashed out

Incorrect. In the absence of new legislation case law is how these things get worked out, but new statutes could be passed and could void prior case law.

Well that's a given in a discussion around common law jurisprudence. I still think it is highly unlikely that this changes. This issue doesn't seem to be making or breaking the political careers of the members of legislative branch anytime soon.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

Let me expand on this a bit... if you read through the text (feel free to search for the below terms) of the current laws around copyright you will notice that there is no discussion of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction

These legal doctrines are the result of the details are hashed out in case law.

This is distinct from countries that use civil law jurisprudence. Common law jurisprudence relies heavily on case law.

> Well that's a given

Funny way to admit that your original statement was flat-out wrong.

There is no separate "civil law jurisprudence" and "common law jurisprudence". Common law by itself is by definition not jurisprudence. Civil law combines aspects of statutory and common law (as one form of precedent) into a single system. Some aspects of common law even make their way into criminal law. Instead of just Googling for buzzwords, learn what they mean before you try to bluster your way through an argument with them.