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?