You are aware that was 250 or more years ago, right? Things change.
People who think the courts should make things right in civil matters where monetary damages are not involved are abusing the courts and legal system. They are abusing their fellow citizens with it too.
So then you do believe that violating a contract should have no penalty. Libel should have no penalty. Harassment should have no penalty. People should be free to do and say whatever they want and as long as it isn't criminal then there are no repercussions.
If folks want their pound of flesh maybe folks should grow thicker hides and pound sand instead?
Should the same be true in the criminal world too? If I rob a bank and get caught then as long as I return everything I took then I should be free to walk? Or should there be a pound of flesh involved to discourage me from trying it again?
Time does not change Law, only an act of the original right to amend (as per Marshall no less) the Law changes the Law when we are talking that sort of Law.
The Law has not been changed to permit excessive judgments (iow, not related to monetary damages).
There are no scribbling in the margins no matter how the modern Court has lawlessly done.
Elsewhere I just posted this for comparison:
Indeed, that homosexual act were illegal among the several States that ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights proves that there is not nor can there be any A4:S2:C1 “Privilege and Immunity” or a 9th Amendment “other right retained” to engage in homosexual sex.
Laws against homosexual acts are inherently constitutional.
And I continued in a subsequent post:
That they were against the law in the States that ratified the Law demonstrates that such laws cannot be unconstitutional.
The constitution cannot demand that those that ratified it were in any way abeyance of it except that it is expressly addressed by same Law, such as with the commerce clause that only existed to give Congress power to prevent States from giving their own citizens special privileges within their own jurisdictions at the expense of the citizens of other States who might choose to engage in commerce outside of their own State.