I guess it goes back to what we expect SCOTUS to do. Is SCOTUS supposed to insure that when Congress specifically places limits of any kind in place, that Congress' edict (as signed by the President) is followed to-the-letter? OR, is SCOTUS supposed to step in and say, "Well, the law specifically says XXXX, but any 'reasonable person' knows what Congress really meant to say was YYYY." ? In other words, do we want SCOTUS to follow the law as written, or edit it?

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to issue a decision which does not involve any "well intentioned editing" so that Congress can go back and do it right. That way, SCOTUS remains as a court of law, instead of as Congress' editor. The "editor-critiquer" is supposed to be the President who signs (or vetoes) what Congress places before him/her.