[Gozer]

Any case before the Supreme Court has been adjudicated by several other judges, and argued by dozens of lawyers.
The Supreme Court consistently disagrees on the intrepetation of law (unanimously rulings are relatively rare, otherwise they wouldn't have reached the Supreme Court)

Furthermore, the justices have an infinite number of clerks and Lawyers working for them.
Most court-watchers agree that on the most polarized cases, the Justice identifies how he wants to rule and works backward to the case's standing. For example, Chief Justice Roberts and the key Obamacare case; he wanted to rule with a judicial philosophy that would minimize the impact of the court, yet limit the purview of the government (compelling a citizen to purchase, for his own good).
Once Roberts identified that was his goal, he found a way to rule thusly. (a ruling I think was correct) But he was the only one that made that ruling (1/9), because the Justices generally work backward.
See also: Marbury v Madison

This methodology is certainly not true for all cases. Many cases do require technical parsing of legalese, such as a debitor-creditor issue.

I do realize that Bernie would not be approved by the Senate, and would likely not accept the nomination. Even if he thought he could be a Justice, he probably wouldn't want to be remembered as Harriet Miers.

But I'd still like to see it. Garland isn't worthy of consideration because of President Blackenstein? How's this?