Independent of whether this is a good decision, I thought that the Supreme Court's mandate was to decide whether a law violates the Constitution and little more.
No, its to resolve all cases and controversies in law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (or, at least, that's the role of the federal judiciary; the Supreme Court's role is procedurally limited to a certain subset of those cases and controversies that are either in its original jurisdiction or properly before it on appeal.) See, generally, Article III of the US Constitution.
Also, here, all the Supreme Court did is find the statute in violation of the Constitution, so even under your narrow view of its role its action seems perfectly within what it is assigned to do.
Comments
No, its to resolve all cases and controversies in law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (or, at least, that's the role of the federal judiciary; the Supreme Court's role is procedurally limited to a certain subset of those cases and controversies that are either in its original jurisdiction or properly before it on appeal.) See, generally, Article III of the US Constitution.
Also, here, all the Supreme Court did is find the statute in violation of the Constitution, so even under your narrow view of its role its action seems perfectly within what it is assigned to do.