Hey look, if you're going to take a snippet of a fuck knows how long SC decision and present it to me like it supports your argument about elections being referendums, then criticise me for not having read the whole thing when I point out your snippet doesn't support your argument, then that's just retarded.

If you really want to prove this argument, find the bits that support what you actually believe their decision was based on. It's not my fault you expect me to read into things stuff that isn't in the bit you cited.