I think it depends how you view the relationship between the judiciary and the rest of government. For example, the judiciary can be seen in part as the voice of the past— they're appointed by previous generations of politicians, part of their role is to apply and interpret the laws accumulated by previous governments, and they're free from having to pander to voters every election cycle.

If the present day government has become ineffective or gridlocked, then it makes sense to me that the judiciary may have a role to play not in setting new policy, but at least in recognizing the intent of past leaders as encoded in existing laws.