You're committing a logical falacy here. Saying the court shouldn't "make it impossible to provide universal health care, to deal effectively with climate change, and to reduce social and economic inequalities" is not the same thing as saying it should "ensure" those things. The whole point of the article is that courts should show discretion in interfering with legislatures. Of course the courts don't exist to ensure these things - legislatures do, and they should be allowed to do their jobs to the extent that they don't unduly infringe on individual liberties. Courts and judicial review exist to protect people's fundamental rights against the "tyranny of the majority" - not to overturn legislation which represents the will of the people and their prerogative to address matters of general concern to society.