The courts are basically saying ok, fine, you can have a general warrant, however the legislation would have to specifically authorise the scope of the warrant. But the whole point of general warrants is to not have to specify the scope.

That basically makes general warrants worthless, because it seems like you'd have to anticipate the specific details needed in the warrant and put that in the law authorising the warrant. In practice that probably means specific details like the names of the people, places and property subject to the warrant. Clearly that's not practical to put in law, but how else do you ensure that a general warrant applies in any specific case? It's a subtle but beautiful Judicial FU.