Interestingly, Crito began attempting to persuade Socrates to escape by considering what people may think if his friends did not come to his rescue. Socrates does a good job giving reasons why considering the opinions of the masses irrelevant; however, in true essence, it is relevant because Socrates still favors the opinion of a particular group, and the group is the Athenian law makers.
As far as intelligence goes, I have a problem with Socrates’ perspective. I fear to assume that Socrates believes that those in power are more intelligent than the people of Athens merely because the rest are not in political power. Maybe it was his rhetorical way of explaining that we should trust the judgment of the professionals of a particular position. Now, I understand that when it comes to many situations it is wise to enquire from the professionals. For example, if I want to lose weight and lower blood pressure, I would speak to a Doctor or Dietician. The problem is, no matter how intelligent one may be in his own craft they still make mistakes. Doctors can prescribe wrong doses and people die as a consequence. I’m sure you can think of many other examples.
In relation to the Supreme Court, I’m afraid Socrates would think these men to be the highest of all intellectuals, and whatever they say must be the rule of law no matter what. I only say this because of Socrates’ action to the death; although it was logically consistent with his views, it was extremely radical. Imagine if we were to apply the Categorical Imperative and apply Socrates’ decision as a universal law. By this time we would have global tyranny because the universal law would be that the subjects would surrender to whatever the leaders dictate whether wrong or right. For Socrates, it was the right in his own perspective, but if it fails to be applied as a universal law, then it would have also been valid for Socrates and any other in modern times to escape the situation.