Any good reader with reasonable intelligence could figure it out. The issues in most appellate cases are very narrow. And the litigants do all the heavy lifting - they present the Court with exhaustively researched and thorough briefs, along with all the amicus briefs from other interested parties. The Court simply has to apply common sense and make a decision, then have the law clerks put it all into written form that adequately supports and explains the decision. There's not any magical alchemy going on. Sure, they dress it up in terms of precedent and constitutional scholarship, but it's all common sense and politics at the core. Don't believe that Wizard of Oz stuff about "legal minds".
Not the case at all. It's not a matter of just coming to the "right" conclusion in a particular case. It's about applying a consistent sound judicial philosophy.
What these guys are doing is very important. And they have to be bright, good lawyers.
I say all this as a lawyer who does think the legal mind stuff is important.