Re: Arbitrary law is reappearing
The central difficulty is that the Supreme Court, as with the US Supreme Court, gets to say what the Constitution requires, and it requires just what they say it does, unsurprisingly. But what's a poor Supreme Court justice to do when she (or he, or whatever) simply "knows" what it should say, even if it didn't, in its unwritten (or even written, in the US) glory. Personally, I'm in favor of statutes every time, unless very ambiguous, unless a statute or Act clearly violates my personal and contemporary sense of ethics. Laugh.