That's part of where legislating from the bench comes from.
These two leftist hacks need to be asked if they prefer legislating from the bench or not. They should swear it off.
> “Uncertainty in the law is where all the problems arise.”
Lack of principles is where the problems arise. The Constitution is ridiculously short - it would be 100s or 1000s of pages if rewritten today. It was ratified without the bill of rights which was also very short.
Why/how? Because it was based on a strong set of principles that everyone agreed to. When uncertainty, ambiguity, or contradictions would arise, people acting in good faith could discuss the principles it was based on and come to a solution.
They added the bill of rights because they knew unprincipled people would be elected in the future and wanted to put some limits on those unprincipled politicians, not because the principles had limited application.
These days, too many people don’t look at principles, but at exceptions, loopholes, and alternate definitions (depends on what the word “is” is). “Freedom of speech”, “presumption of innocence”, and “due process” are great examples. The founders wouldn’t have said those only apply in narrow cases outlined in the amendments. Those principles should be applied very broadly, but the bill of rights only places specific limits on what unprincipled governments can do (if you consider “congress shall make no law” specific). Look at what happens when you apply these principles broadly vs the left interpretation
1) “Freedom of speech” on universities
2) “presumptions of innocence” and Kavanaugh
3) “Due process” and gun laws (or campus metoo accusations or the no fly list, etc)
“Principles” never cross the mind of liberals in these cases and so many more. They only look for ways to interpret the Constitution as narrowly as possible.
There is still uncertainty with principles. But when one side has abandoned principles for emotional objectives there’s no common ground to even start a debate or discussion.