That’s their point, yes. But it’s the specific duty of the courts to interpret laws as written, not some guy wearing khakis in a cubicle. Congress should be clear and specific in the first place — it’s not that hard to do.
” But it’s the specific duty of the courts to interpret laws as written,”
The real answer is for congress to not write ambiguous laws that need interpretation.
Where do we draw the line between interpreting a law and rewriting it.?
Here is Roberts's opinion on this issue:
The Framers appreciated that the laws judges would necessarily apply in resolving those disputes would not always be clear. Cognizant of the limits of human language and foresight, they anticipated that “[a]ll new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation,” would be “more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning” was settled “by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.” The Federalist No. 37, p. 236 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison).