I don’t see that. Changing laws because of “uproar in the market” is normal and a good thing (laws serve people, not the other way around), so yes, things may change there.
I also don’t see a need for a judge to signal to lawmakers that laws need to change/be created to react to that uproar. The ball already is rolling there (slowly, as it should. A big benefit of government is that it provides stability)
However, because of separation of powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) a judge, I think, is not the one to make huge changes to the interpretation of current laws.
I also don’t see a need for a judge to signal to lawmakers that laws need to change/be created to react to that uproar. The ball already is rolling there (slowly, as it should. A big benefit of government is that it provides stability)