"A Supreme Court Justice is a judge who solves arguments by giving his or her opinion."
ERRRR wrong answer! A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to enforce the highest law of the land, the Constitution!!
Oh come on... it's Sesame Street - a kids show, targetting kids who don't know what the Constitution is and, at an age where they not only don't care to know but would probably not quite understand anyways.
Besides, what she said is accurate from a somewhat high-level view: Justices do give their opinions (i.e. their interpretation of applicable laws and the Constitution) on the cases that come before them. The Constitution doesn't magically have all the answers already written for every case that will ever come before the Court. It provides some answers and a framework to use in finding the rest
†. Sometimes finding those answers is easy and sometimes it's hard. But almost always it boils down to the opinions of the Justices and the debates they have behind closed doors. Coincidentally, I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall of that conference room!
I'll also point out that you are,
flat out wrong about something. The Supreme Court doesn't enforce anything. In fact it can't enforce anything (President Jackson has been quoted as having said: "[Chief Justice] Marshall made his decision so now let him enforce it!" although I believe the quote is disputed) and relies on respect for the Constitution and the institution of the Court. If you think they have some enforcement mechanism at their disposal, I would love to hear what you think that is, and where it is authorized in the Constitution.
Clarence Thomas is the man. Best man in the Supreme Court... till we get Andrew Napolitano or Kevin Gutzman in the Court. 
I like Thomas - more so because he doesn't question lawyers during oral arguments, but actually listens instead. I don't always agree with him, although I find his opinions to be both well written and carefully reasoned, but I certainly respect him as a Justice.
Napolitano?
Really? You want Andrew Napolitano on the Supreme Court?
I kinda like Kozinski, although he can be a bit too liberal for my liking at times. But, frankly,
anyone that closes an opinion with “[t]he parties are advised to chill.” deserves to be a Supreme!
By the way, anyone betting on a 7-2 verdict? I heard a Law Prof. earlier today at my University arguing that (he said Scalia & Thomas would dissent, which is kind of a foregone conclusion really!). I was not convinced, but it got me thinking. If we get a 7-2 (either way) that would be quite something...
† I'm not advocating for a living Constitution or any particular legal theory on how it should be interpreted. Just stating a fact.
