GIP Main, I don't think it is at all clear that all views would be heard from the interveners invited. Representing all views is not the purpose of having interveners, as I understand it. The main purpose of intervener status, and maybe this is one area in which the court(s) may want to educate the country a little, is to provide information about the wider subject areas that may help the justices make their decisions. Information about the case is provided by the parties involved, and their lawyers.

If Supreme Court justices are already adequately informed in certain areas, then interveners in those areas are not necessary, though they may be included if there is sufficient time.

As a lay person reading the story, I can see that it is not the purpose of internvening to provide all sides with a soap box.

No one involved in the case was excluded. No one was toppled, as I see it.