Are they though? Does the court really want to make rulings on incredibly tenuous ground where there is no law applicable? I mean look at citizens united. That was a lawsuit brought to the supreme court when everyone in the country knew that we needed campaign finance reform. Campaign finance law at the federal level (where campaign finance law clearly belongs) was totally silent on any major issue of campaign finance that has come up since...when? The fifties? But lawsuits get filed and they have to be resolved and some justice on the court says "well, if we take this law that applies to individuals and apply it to corporations we can have a ruling that is at least tangentially related to existing law." No matter how much we want to run shrieking in terror from the most conservative court in nearly a hundred years they didn't go out of their way to rule on citizens united...and it is certainly not their preference to have gigantic obvious voids in the law that call for nonsensical rulings.