I concur with the way SCOTUS handled this case. While the opinions of the justices were closely split and the dissenting opinions well-written, the Court as a whole chose not to "make law from the bench".

I'm glad that the Congress took fairly quick action to correct a law which was faultily written from the outset. I'm sure SCOTUS was pleased with that result, as well. This case is a good example of how poorly written or confusing laws can lead to unsatisfying judicial decisions. It highlights the quandary faced by courts in attempting to rule using poorly crafted legislation.

What's more bothersome to me is the nagging suspicion that the law was initially written that way intentionally, maybe the product of wording provided by a big company lobby which intended it to be faulty, which then wasn't read before passage by the Congress that voted it in.