> We need judgements that put our society in the best position for the next decade, and these 9 people may not be sufficiently able to be coached to think ahead

> We need judgements that put our society in the best position for the next decade, and these 9 people may not be sufficiently able to be coached to think ahead far enough to do that. That is a kind of judgement, but that kind of judgment is a policy judgment, not a legal one. If you want a policy judgment, you go to Congress; they make a determination, decide if they’re going to pass a law, and if they do so then you have a law that reflects what their policy is in the text of the statute. If you want a legal one, you go to the Courts. If there’s ambiguity in the law, then you’re going to have different interpretations, and the attorneys at trial, and often the Solicitor-General of the United States are going to present their best arguments as to how the law should be interpreted. In other words, a trial and its eventual outcome is a collaboration between adversaries, the Justices, their staff, and the US government when they choose to chime in (they usually can if they want even if they’re not one of try party’s at trial). You’re giving the Justices too little credit and more responsibility than they lawfully possess; it is already sufficient that they have the responsibility of interpreting the laws, facts and arguments before them.