I am convinced that the 🍊💩🤡 is going to collapse our democracy and declare our government moot and declare himself and

[Igel]

15. Courts are passive.

They cannot initiate cases under our system of jurisprudence. They wait until something's offered for them to chew on.

As for setting themselves up as pundits that's probably not a great idea. Sounds good when they criticize somebody we think of as the bad guy but we don't have the same response when the targets "our side". Personal opinions are best reserved for legal opinions (and even then, footnotes). Or from time to time some tome or opinion piece when a judge absolutely, positively can't let something slide.

Open punditry does two unwanted things: It fractures the court when collegiality is important. Yes, they do listen to each other; fracture that, and that could stop and degenerate into closed-door sniping and snarking. And, in addition, it's interference in the court cases that are happening in inferior courts. SCOTUS likes to get a case that is "ripe", in the sense that it's ready for adjudication. In the case of the supreme court, that has to include whether lower courts have collected and parsed the facts as well as the relevant law/regulations and material on their interpretation. They only stop in before lower courts have decided when there's some urgency involved and lower courts lack the time for the regular process to play out.