Looking back, I'm now wondering whether the court made their power grab with an eye toward putting the court challenges to rest. It takes only four members to decide to hear a case, but five to rule. Given that the decision ended up 6-3, at least one person who voted to take the case also voted to uphold the law. This makes the plot a bit thicker (because I doubt anyone didn't have their mind already made up before the arguments). It really makes me wish that they published who votes to take a case. The opacity of the process of deciding which cases are heard and which aren't is very undemocratic, and I wish they would change that rule. Congress could force them to, but it isn't ever on anyone's radar. Who is it supposed to protect, anyway?