Obviously this decision (and most other major decisions these days) had elements of partisanship (particularly among the 4 libs in the dissent), but sometimes the very fact that the U.S. Constitution is such a small, concise document creates disagreement about what it means. Take this case, for instance - the 15th amendment prohibits voting disenfranchisement based on race, color, etc., AND authorizes Congres to enforce the legislation with "appropriate legislation." Reasonable minds -- even "the best and brightest legal minds in the country" -- can differ on (a) what is "appropriate legislation," and (b) who gets to determine what is "appropriate legislation" (e.g., is that Congress's job, or the Supreme Court?).
Sorry my FR friend but, I have to respectfully disagree with your defense of the USSC hacks, I do not give the USSC any leeway when it comes to understanding what the Founders intended.
Remember, we were promised these traitors (er Judges) were the best of the best and as such, even if they could not fathom what the founders intended there is an owners manual known to the rest of us unwashed as the Federalist Papers.
If your sole job is to understand and defend the Constitution, then it is completely unreasonable to allow ANY of these hacks any latitude and to tolerate ignorance of the very core foundation laws of this country.
If a person does not know the intent of the most basic laws of our land they have no business sitting on the bench of the USSC or any other court for that matter.
One of the most basic concepts of the Constitution is that if it is not in there, the Federal government cannot do it. That concept is now completely ignored.
Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution reflect the huge influx of dishonest lawyers into our political system. They become longer and more vague with each subsequent amendment. This is deliberate when you are a dishonest politician.