I actually agree, but what you're describing is effectively legislation. The courts were asked to make a decision and interpret the law as it's written and they

I actually agree, but what you're describing is effectively legislation. The courts were asked to make a decision and interpret the law as it's written and they did. Honestly, I care more that the court makes a decision than they make the right one. They took a dispute over ambiguous law and disambiguated it. After that the ball is in the other branches' courts. Legislation that outright banned affirmative action would have been constitutional and we let the status quo stand for 45 years without feeling the need to intervene. I can only speak for myself but a ruling that people just accept and don't feel the need to pass new legislation to correct is to me the gold standard.