I personally do think the US should be more aggressive in reining in what I personally consider to be certain abuses (e.g. using your leadership in one area, like search or app store, to favor your own items over others, regardless of whether you're a monopoly or not).
But the problem is there aren't laws against that.
If we want to change things, change the laws first.
For better or worse, the judiciary as legislators is our system now, may as well acknowledge it.
The courts have the ability to "legislate" via precedent when choosing between different conflicting laws or conflicting rights, and have an extra-wide scope when it comes to interpreting the constitution, because it is so short and intentionally broad/vague.
But when it comes to non-constitutional issues (e.g. antitrust), and a situation is clearly covered by existing law (not at the "boundary" of a law or between conflicting laws), the judicial branch can't do anything.
I mean, that's just not how courts work. And if a court did, it would be overturned in appeal.
So, no -- I absolutely would never acknowledge the judiciary as legislators now. That would be a complete constitutional and democratic breakdown, so thank goodness that's not the case.
Don't confuse gridlock (slow lawmaking) with an unconstitutional usurpment of power.