You advocate a modernist perversion of the common law justice system, that is designed to benefit the overarching state at the expense of individual freedom. Youi may be correct that given our cultural decline, it will not work like it worked for hundreds of years in the Anglosphere. Which is why Europe is dying, and we are not far behind. Constitutionalist robotics will not save us.
I suppose a discussion of the history of common law would be better suited for another thread. However, suffice it to say that the very basis of common law was precident. Judgements made on new issues created a precident for future decisions. I believe that is what I advocated in my posts. It's hard for me to consider such trivial matters as oaths of office, common law precident, separation of powers, an originalist judiciary as modern perversions. Nor can I look on efforts to prevent religious and liberal attempts to manipulate our fragile but wonderfully planned out republican system of government and laws as constitutional robotics.
It does seem a bit humerous that when an ideology wants to see certain changes in the judiciary that are not constitutional, it's the moral and right thing to want. But when confronted with another ideology that wants changes to support their perspective, it's decried as unAmerican by the first ideology. But they will both go after the pervert who believes both should butt out.