You're confusing the process of drafting or modifying laws with the process of defining exactly what those laws mean in practice. Criminal courts only get involved once there's reasonable suspicion that a party has committed a crime (so far as the current legal understanding of the law), not before. You can't just say "so and so violated law A", the courts need some evidence to back up that claim. At best you might get a detective to go out and ask some questions, look around, and try to figure out if there's anything there to follow up on.

Now civil court is another matter, but the state doesn't prosecute that, so it's not really relevant to this discussion.

The court (and particularly the supreme court) is involved in interpreting the law, but they don't get to ask people to prove they haven't broken the law unless they have some kind of evidence that they did in fact already break the law. Simply claiming they "think" someone is in violation of a law based on no evidence at all falls so far short of the legal requirements to bring a case it's laughable. If somehow the government did prosecute based on no evidence at all I'd imagine there's a whole horde of lawyers that would line up to get a chunk of the wrongful prosecution lawsuit that would come of that.