Commonsense is as the name implies, “common,” that is, just about everyone agrees on the best outcome. It has been my observation that indeed most people agree how most issues surrounding Rights in Law should work out as a final effect, the arguments seem to dwell on the mechanism, particularly if it requires the dreaded “Judgement Call”. Other concepts like “setting a precedent” (without understanding what that means under Common Law) or the sophomoric “slippery slope” argument that is flung about in discussion as if it were a scientific fact, are also invoked as valid when they are not.
I agree that it is harder to work rationally than to apply the mindless application of a rule, but not only does flexible interpretation improve the application of the law, it also puts it under continuous review. Remember the law is there to serve us, not the other way around.