Legislating from the bench is not a bad thing, to the extent it doesn't contradict a fully valid statute. Indeed, most law in the US is judicially created, and always has been, dating back to the English common law system from which we inherited ours.
American courts continue to create common law today. This happens less at the federal level only because the scope of federal common law is narrower.
I too have concerns over the breadth of the EU right to be forgotten, but not over the concept that a court could combine premises with a process of reasoning to arrive at such a conclusion.
The Supreme Court's focus on ensuring that the cases before it are actually legitimate is primarily for three reasons: keeping their workload manageable, deferring controversial decisions they don't actually need to make, and complying with the Case or Controversy Clause in the federal Constitution.
Notably, the Case or Controversy Clause does not bind the state courts. Whether they are willing to issue advisory opinions or perform other duties is a matter of state law.
American courts continue to create common law today. This happens less at the federal level only because the scope of federal common law is narrower.
I too have concerns over the breadth of the EU right to be forgotten, but not over the concept that a court could combine premises with a process of reasoning to arrive at such a conclusion.
The Supreme Court's focus on ensuring that the cases before it are actually legitimate is primarily for three reasons: keeping their workload manageable, deferring controversial decisions they don't actually need to make, and complying with the Case or Controversy Clause in the federal Constitution.
Notably, the Case or Controversy Clause does not bind the state courts. Whether they are willing to issue advisory opinions or perform other duties is a matter of state law.