2) Is it better that The Supreme Court and its clerks go through the motions of constructing elaborate legal theories that encourage their army of elite law sycophants to take to the op-eds and explain how brilliant it is and how, suck it libs, you may disagree, but Their Brilliant Reasoning Cannot Be Questioned? Or is it better that they barely bother to try, making it harder for their army of intellectual lickspittles to construct ridiculous defenses.
Again, the former might provide some minor check on the kinds of rulings they come up with, but the latter does tear down the facade of respectability that elite lawyers trying to get prestigious clerkships for their kids and jobs for themselves have been peddling for decades.