We do not usually defer to their learned judgment on these matters.
The topic being the proposed NEW legislation, no doubt it would attempt to skirt the issues that the SCOTUS determined were unconstitutional.
Based upon the assumption that this new legislation would be found to be constitutional, are we supposed to be against it because it would be in the hands of 0bama, but would support it if it would have been used by Bush?
My point is that short term occupancy of the constitutional position should not determine the ideological outlook of the proper role and function of that position.
When Bush was presiding over a rather expansive view of the power of the executive branch I long cautioned “don't trust Bush with any power you wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton with”. It turned out to be 0bama, but the point stands none the less potent for that.
I did the same thing. Nine years ago the scariest prospect was that of a President Hillary!. Odd how things change.