Law can be difficult because tiny nuances like this can sometimes matter. It's usually not because judges are too inept to comprehend the subject matter, but because they feel that the laws still on the books require them to undertake a stringent interpretation that has an effect most people would consider undesirable. In some highly technical cases, while judges can generally be taught the meaning, their unfamiliarity with the subject matter may cause them not to fully appreciate the effects and ramifications of some of their rulings.
Legal professionals tend to be technically minded and frequently accept conclusions that do not serve the interests of justice (except in the theoretical, abstract context of a perfectly-reflective, well-functioning republic) in order to comply with a strict reading of the text of the law.
That's a double-edged sword. It provides some protection against judges who would "legislate from the bench" (i.e., change the effects of the law based on their personal values instead of the values the community has codified through the legislature), but it also frequently restrains what would be considered a rational and fair implementation of the law in order to serve an ideological commitment to the particularities of wording.
Pretty much everything involved in attempting to create a generally applicable, fair legal system is a delicate balance. Too much familiarity with a subject and the judge can be accused of bias; too little and the judge may not understand the impact of their rulings. Too much commitment to legal wording can lead to some plainly undesirable conclusions where the real people and businesses before the judge become the collateral damage of a thought exercise, but insufficient commitment to implementing the community's values instead of one's own can lead to judges whose influence becomes oppressive or despotic. It comes down to needing judges with good judgment.
Constitutional reforms may be reasonable to modernize the system to be more responsive to the community's values and less dependent on the technicalities of outdated verbiage (the All Writs Act, which is referenced in this case, was codified into law 227 years ago), now that we live in an age of instant global communication and industrialism. Many such reforms could happen at the state level.
Legal professionals tend to be technically minded and frequently accept conclusions that do not serve the interests of justice (except in the theoretical, abstract context of a perfectly-reflective, well-functioning republic) in order to comply with a strict reading of the text of the law.
That's a double-edged sword. It provides some protection against judges who would "legislate from the bench" (i.e., change the effects of the law based on their personal values instead of the values the community has codified through the legislature), but it also frequently restrains what would be considered a rational and fair implementation of the law in order to serve an ideological commitment to the particularities of wording.
Pretty much everything involved in attempting to create a generally applicable, fair legal system is a delicate balance. Too much familiarity with a subject and the judge can be accused of bias; too little and the judge may not understand the impact of their rulings. Too much commitment to legal wording can lead to some plainly undesirable conclusions where the real people and businesses before the judge become the collateral damage of a thought exercise, but insufficient commitment to implementing the community's values instead of one's own can lead to judges whose influence becomes oppressive or despotic. It comes down to needing judges with good judgment.
Constitutional reforms may be reasonable to modernize the system to be more responsive to the community's values and less dependent on the technicalities of outdated verbiage (the All Writs Act, which is referenced in this case, was codified into law 227 years ago), now that we live in an age of instant global communication and industrialism. Many such reforms could happen at the state level.