(As an aside, I suspect Clinton was getting ready to unload a legal bombshell so they let him slide rather than get in a public argument about the merits of fiction jurisdiction where verbs and adverbs reign, versus the 'now' jurisdiction where nouns are king. Clinton played his trump card and rattled the court when he let them know he knew what 'mirror' law was when he made his famous what is 'is' statement. They knew he was ready to blow the whistle if they didn't back off. And back off they did.)
But now the courts are starting to play word games again and it doesn't bode well for the rule of law if the court is allowed to re-define the words used in existing law. Their job is to define what the law is based on words used in the law which already have specific and non-ambiguous definitions -- not to re-define those words. This practice dis-enfranches We, the people, who have already agreed (through Congress) on word definitions when the laws are created using those words.
Are the courts going to be allowed to change the Constitution with a swipe of the pen based on bad opinions rather than allow the people to speak and create new laws or amend the constitution in a manner prescribed by law?
Who needs a constitution or a rule of law if a handful of appointees can sit as kings and arbitrarily legislate from the bench? Send Congress home. They aren't doing their job and are taking money under false pretenses.