beliefs about "the potential impacts" of their decision (i.e. impacts on climate change, or abortion rates, or the costs / benefits of vaccines) or do you want the court to apply the law?

I tend to think the court should be somewhat dismissing the potential impacts in cases like this. The justices are not the experts in these various things - they shouldn't be judging whether the regulation is good or bad at addressing climate change or its economic impacts any more then they should be deciding whether having a constitutional right to abortion will lead to more or less abortions or be a net positive or negative for women's health. The court should be applying the law / constitution based on the words and intent of the law / constitution.

Its Congress first (or state legislatures) and then agencies designated with power, who should be making findings, looking at impacts and shaping laws / regulations to address them. The court should be looking at whether the law / regulation passed is within what you are authorized to do under the governing constitutional provision or law and/or does this law / regulation violate some right retained by the people / states that you do not have the power to regulate in this way.

We can all disagree with the way the court interprets the law, but I don't think the court should really be looking at impacts in the way our government is designed.