Are SCOTUS Justices Actually Congressmen?

      This week the SCOTUS made two decisions, one predictable the other not, but both very disappointing and the later destructive and dangerous for our country.  Not being an attorney, I can only base my interpretation of these decisions on common sense and what I know about the Constitution and how it has been interpreted by previous courts.
      I do not necessarily disagree that gays and lesbian can marry.  I do disagree that this even came before  SCOTUS.  Like the decision on abortion in the '70s,  this is a state supreme court issue and not one for SCOTUS.  This was predictable as SCOTUS has continued to trample states' rights.  There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion and marriage and therefore according to the Constitution, this is left to the states to decide. If a state supreme court thinks the voters were wrong denying the joys (and pains) of marriage to gays and lesbians, then it should rule so.  In my opinion, an amendment  to the US Constitution is necessary for it to become the law of the land as it would then become part of the US Constitution.  Unfortunately, SCOTUS has continued to erode states' rights writing laws as opposed to what they should be doing. According to Article III of the Constitution, the justices are to interpret legal matters and not make them.  What SCOTUS should have ruled, is that if a state chooses not to issue licenses for gay marriage, it none the less has to recognize the rights of gay couples bestowed on them by those performed in other states as some of those rights involved property, taxes and inheritances.  Finally, SCOTUS should have added to the decision, that although gay marriage is according to ScOTUS the law of the land,  ministers, priests, rabbis, and even imams and their churches, synagogues and mosques do not have to perform the ceremonies on religious grounds, if they choose not to.  Private individuals may also choose to not provide services on religious grounds.
      The decision on Obamacare is the most disturbing, and I question the ability and intelligence of five of the justices to read and comprehend simple language. The law specifically said one thing and now SCOTUS says it says another just as they did with the original decision on Obamacare.  When the law states that government subsidies can only be granted to states that set of insurance exchanges, how can it mean that subsidies can be given whether a state does so or not. The main architect of this disaster, Jonathan Gruber, has said that the American people are stupid and now he can extend that statement to five SCOTUS justices.  Obamacare is a law that was sold to the American public based on outright lies and deception and for those of you who have followed my blog, you know that this law has very little to do with healthcare and much much more about collapsing the American economy as was Obama's goal from the onset.  The financing of Obamacare is unsustainable and has dire consequences for our country.
      The job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution  and resolve conflicts.  It is not to make laws.  If the justices of SCOTUS want to create legislation, then they should resign and run for Congress.