Some may not appreciate the depth of the issue, others may simply recognize that there's little that can be done. Common law courts already have relatively strong
procedural protections. In some countries like the U.S. these procedural protections are at least in principal inviolable by the legislature, even when they're not explicit in the written constitution.
But courts neither have the duty nor the capacity (legally or otherwise) to police everything that occurs outside their court. If the evidence presented is proper on its face, what else can they do? Judges have an independent duty to pursue the truth of the substantive legal matter, but that's distinct from actively ferreting out ancillary illegality and falsehoods.
We also have an adversarial system, so there are alternatives to direct judicial oversight of the executive branch: the legislature and the defendant. Indeed, much of the evidence for illegal surveillance has come from defendants, sometimes relying on the court's subpoena powers to discover, which is a form of procedural protection. So not only are there strong procedural protections, there's someone in the court room with the duty, the motivation, and at least in principle the power to see that they're enforced.
IMO, it's right and proper for courts to be sources of legal change, just don't expect it to be swift or comprehensive. The upshot is that when it does happen, it's often far more considered and secure. And this is precisely because it's slow, incremental, supported by well-vetted evidence, and spurred by manifest, not conjectured, injustice and suffering.
The fact that courts only react to injustice, rather than prevent it, is something of a feature, not a bug.
The fact that it's the poor that suffer injustice the most isn't something that courts can fix. Look at the right for counsel to be afforded the indigent[1]: how successful was that remedy? Not particularly so as in many places it's not only useless but used to excuse bad outcomes--"well, he did have an attorney". In jurisdictions where it works well it would have, if it hadn't already, been provided. Wealth inequality is particularly far outside the court's wheelhouse.
[1] The traditional right to counsel is merely a right to hire legal representation. The right to publicly funded counsel for the indigent is a prospective remedy required by SCOTUS in 1963. Prospective remedies have poor track records. The good protections, the ones that make up traditional procedural protections, exhibit survival bias and have slowly accreted over nearly a millennia. This is why the Common Law is considered to have the strongest procedural protections--the length of time it's had to refine that aspect of the legal system. Most other Western systems were re-invented de novo in the late 18th and 19th centuries by, basically, philosophers and revolutionaries. Theory only gets you so far, and often takes you way off course.