Anything like that would not be something expected from country's best laywers. A judge given a quarter million USD salary must be the best of the best in performance, and not to deputise his most important duties.

> it's clear that regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances of their appointment, each justice is incredibly intelligent and engaged.

I heard of much less charitable descriptions of the process, with the most frequent being about the well known mental decline of some judges.

> The problem is that when it comes to the really sticky, complex issues that affect huge swaths of human rights, it's very possible for justices, in your words, to "rely upon fact and logical argument," but base their end goal/optimization function on either "what did the founders of the country factually and logically intend" or "what do the norms and ideals of modern society suggest would be factually and logically sustainable" without regard to the opposite viewpoint.

This is one of very many problems. US court system has become too much more than just a legal institute it should be.

The point my law instructor told me was that a judge just a lawyer on the government payroll, and half of them should be sent back to the law school so bad their skill level was. Then, if you can not trust half of them with most basic judicial duties, why should you entrust them with the fate of society, moral guidance, and big matter topics?

Basically, the elites in the West tend to think too many things about lawyers, when they shouldn't.

He was a lawyer by trade, and he was not happy with society putting lawyers in charge of running itself at all.