To support what Autoexc is saying - this is effectively an argument about the theory on one side, and the practical reality of intentionally skewed judiciaries, a grid locked and obtuse congress - which in turn is driven by groups with a common cause.

The law, in most cases, is about the practical application of an ideal (the law) to reality (the case).

If things weren’t so lopsided and blatantly partisan, then yes, the theory would matter. It would probably be a prosaic and boring decision.

This court is not only engineered to lean heavily in one direction, it is also being fed cases based on that common agenda.

In addition - we cannot avoid ambiguities unless we have powers of foresight that make the entire governing edifice irrelevant.

No one could predict the capabilities or failures of this generation of LLMs for example. There is no better “law”, unless it is an act that gets updated on a near monthly or quarterly basis.

This is a timeline that a congress is not suited to manage. This is definitely something that an agency of some sort would.

Finally - Saying that bureaucrats and experts are biased, but to leave out the bias of the courts feels unfair.