Legislation is always the first-line rule maker, this is about deciding who is the second-line rule maker - the administrative state of experts and political appointees, or the judicial state of, well, political appointees.
Yeah, I was not talking about this case in particular. For example, various international treaties are often very vaguely formulated, which has the concequence that practical law making gets done in the courts (which is too undemocratic). I would prefer the judiciary in such cases to e.g. rule that the parliment needs to make clearer rules and until that happens, the court adjourns the legal case.
This would move both power and responsibility to the parliament from the courts, which IMO would be healtier for democracy long-term.
