I have long considered that the jurisprudence that dominated before the 1950s (or so) was correct: it is not the job of courts to apply the law vastly differently to how it was intended when it written. If society moves on then society needs to change the law, not expect the courts to deal with it because legistlators (and possibly the electorate) haven’t. Any other approach is anti democractic.
Cases like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges were decided on grouds that stretched the provisions of US constitution and the authority of the SCOTUS, and made the court a political agent. I don’t think the highest courts in other common law jurisdictions suffer the same kind of criticism and political attention as SCOTUS because they are less activist, and that is partly because the US constitution and bill of rights are far more generous than protections elsewhere. While I think we need more generous protections, perhaps some rights need to be guranteed not by the law but by the people themselves in their everyday interactions. Culture matters.
Paul Joseph Watson has a few fun digs at the inconsistencies in mainstream leftist philosophy in his commentary on these leaks. I think he goes overboard on the morality of it at the expense of the jurisprudence.
I’m not providing MSM links. There’s hundreds of them on google. Comments below!