Is the process going to get every decision right? No. And they will from time-to-time revisit arguments. Korematsu v. US was overturned by the subsequent ruling Trump v. Hawaii. Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been used as the basis for 116 years worth of cases where public health has to be weighed against other factors, and is not in he same precarious position as Korematsu v. US.
What's the alternative method for making decisions when there are competing legal arguments?
The point beginning this thread was that some set of extraordinary precedent was being set today. ok123456 provided compelling evidence that this is not the case.
You are now failing to accept the point made, and changing the argument.
What's the alternative method for making decisions when there are competing legal arguments?