My greater concern here is less how they ruled, an more that they ruled along "party lines". This isn't a situation where the court is reaching outside its mandate (as some could argue with social rights issues) - they are adjudicating a fundamental check and balance between the Legislature and Executive. There really should be some consensus on how this works.
The court is a sham at this point. Damn near every ruling these days is a party line vote and it's disappointing. Why even haven them hear cases if we already know the outcome?
The odd thing is that when they do agree, they still get it wrong: their ruling against faithless electors was unanimous, but in their statements they justify the decision by saying that if they ruled based on the text there would be chaos. Folks, that's not your job. If the constitution needs to be fixed it needs to be fixed through proper channels. You don't get to decide something is constitutional (or not) just because you like it (or not).