Judiciary doesn’t make laws. Every controversial ruling that people worry the SCOTUS could be permanently solved by passing a law or amending the constitution. But if that happens then lawmakers no longer have the talking point to use when running for re-election every 2/6 years so both parties they a shared incentive to keep the status quo.
If you don’t put it into law/constitution then a new set of justices could reverse the ruling in the future.
> Kavanaugh and especially Gorsuch are two you want on the court in this case.
What makes you say that? From what I can tell, Gorsuch doesn't seem keen on limiting law enforcement powers at all. Kavanaugh is a bit of a wild card, but I'd be curious to hear times when he's agreed on limited police powers.
> The new rule the Court seems to formulate puts needed, reasonable, accepted, lawful, and congressionally authorized criminal investigations at serious risk in serious cases, often when law enforcement seeks to prevent the threat of violent crimes. And it places undue restrictions on the lawful and necessary enforcement powers exercised not only by the Federal Government, but also by law enforcement in every State and locality throughout the Nation.
If that's a comment about the bureaucracy working slowly as hell, that is reasonable. If it's about the makeup of the court, I disagree.
Kavanaugh and especially Gorsuch are two you want on the court in this case.