>>A company making a blood substitue called "PolyHeme" some time ago received (quietly?) FDA approval to do TRIALS of the product on trauma victims. Such people are usually in no position to provide "informed consent".
>Apparently, the FDA approved the TRIAL anyway on the basis that people not wishing to participate would be expected to be wearing a metal bracelet stating that they are not to have the substance administered. In other words, EVERYONE is "in" unless they specifically opt out!
>
>
>You would trust judges to know the law more then you, but not the FDA, which probably has many MD and PHD types on their staff?

This is not at all the same thing. What the Supreme Court justices decide is THE END OF THE LINE.
In THIS case, with the FDA, they give the authorization and then THINGS GO INTO MOTION, with marginal after-the-fact "oversight", at best, by the FDA.

It is well documented that drug companies use every trick in the book to get their products to market.
You know, little things like stopping trials where things are not looking so good while at the same time continuing parallel studies on the same drugs where things are looking OK.
You know, gagging doctors participating in trials so that negative stuff can never be made public.
You know, like working to influence the patients offered the trials to optimize good result possibilities.
And things you and I wouldn't even dream up because they are so counter basic morality.

Back to the question of the Supreme Court, just for a moment... suppose a big majority of Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it, that turned out to infringe on the rights of, say, military personnel/families who take advantage of military-offered reduced-rate housing on base property.
First, who would make the determination in the first place?
Second, who would have the authority to get the problem be rectified?
Seems to me that the most likely case, assuming no Supreme Court, is that the problem would go unrecognized and unfixed.