AFAIK, the Court's overt mission is to interpret and regulate the intent of Congress. They literally must legislate from the bench where Congress has left them

AFAIK, the Court's overt mission is to interpret and regulate the intent of Congress. They literally must legislate from the bench where Congress has left them an obligation to do so. And Congress can legislate when they feel the Court has taken too much liberty with interpretation or regulation. But I really do think this case falls squarely inside the parameters of "interpretation" as most members would see it.