I have no disagreement with the partisan nature of the justices, but in this decision they worked along strict language lines. First they defined the structure, then they interpreted the language using original intent based on those criteria. What you folks wanted them to do was to legislate from the bench instead of interpret.

If you believe this was such a faulty decision, with such far reaching impact, then take it to the electorate. If your opinion is correct, you surely could be successful.

Mick