Now, they may not have interpreted it the way you or I would, and they may not have interpreted it correctly. But that is what they do.
We afford deference to the Court because we believe it follows a constrained legal procedure that makes the word "interpret" meaningful: this involves taking into account precedent and past case law. This approach tends to prevent justices from "interpreting" the law in ways that effectively re-write the law according to their instantaneous political preferences. This court is receiving criticism (and serious loss of public approval [1]) because it has abandoned those constraints, and keeps overturning longstanding precedent in ways that happen to correspond to the stated political preferences of the justices (and the politicians that appointed them.)