Now if only SCOTUS could still be trusted to actually do what's right by the spirit of the law for the good of the people.
SCOTUS was created to interpret the wording of the laws the legislative branch passes and to ensure those laws do not violate the rights of citizens as written in the constitution. Changing the purpose of the court to include concepts like justices choosing what is in "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people" as opposed to what the people's elected representatives actually wrote and voted for is a slippery slope. It might sound good but only if the majority of justices will always make subjective judgements you agree with. Those of us who disagree with some justices' opinions should want to hard limit SCOTUS to strict interpretation of laws as written and not including their personal beliefs on what might be "for the good of the people."
Your belief of limiting SCOTUS is good, but the reality is they have no limits. They could literally make any interpretation as wild as they want and as long as the interpretation aligns with even the slimmest majority of the house, it stands as the law of the land.
The court is tasked with judging based on the laws at hand. If those laws are flawed or wrong but legal, it's upon congress to change the laws rather than the courts to decide right or wrong.
The court should be focused on legal or illegal. This is how the separation of powers work in the US.
When laws are "broken" we should be looking at congress.
It's like the current court took a look at all the vitriol over Citizens United being one of the worst decisions in history and went "hold my beer".
That said, the present issue of TikTok seems like an open-and-shut first amendment case, regardless whether it is ultimately a tool for influence operations by a hostile foreign power. The price we pay for freedom of speech is that it enables bad faith actors as well.
Similarly, tik tok can't argue that they're press, even if some of their users might use the platform as a news and news commentary outlet. Again, shutting down the platform doesn't prevent those folks from continuing to do so on another platform.
There's, unfortunately, nothing open-and-shut about this case. Especially with a supreme court that seems quite keen on backing up the establishment.
Unlike the regular courts, the supreme court specifically has the power to just go "nope, this law is now void" if they deem it unconstitutional, and fun fact: that constitution sure is open to interpretation, hoo boy. Imagine if a corrupt justice was allowed to just keep on ruling, that sure would make for a fair and just system. Like say someone who had to rule on cases involving their friends who bought them millions of dollars in gifts and instead of recusing themselves, take the case and rule in their friends' favor.
And no way for the people to intervene.
SCOTUS has serious problems.