* laws that ought to exist

* how existing laws ought to be interpreted

* whether a given interpretation is correct

* whether a given interpretation is good

and that the court attempts to interpret and apply laws, not create them? And the legislature can just change laws if they don't like what the court does?

Just because some highly compensated lawyers, and some who wish Kalshi would butter their bread, throw some dust in the air doesn't mean we have to strap on a dunce cap and pretend a bet on the superbowl is really a commodity future. We don't even have to pretend that's a reasonable opinion to have.