I disagree with your analysis.

Consider rule 23a. In choosing the grounds that they did, the federal government has issued a ruling :

(a) That the paederotic majority is populous enough to have standing in a democracy.

(b) That the paederotic majority has been unlawfully targeted as status by laws.

(c) That the paederotic majority holds an array of legitimate interests and concerns taken as a people.

...and finally...

(d) That the paederotic majority is entitled in full to all of the human, political, and civil rights afforded by federal constitution, amendment, law, or international treaty, including the fullest possible protections of due process.

Personally, I couldn't envision a better ruling than the one which was had.