After my previous rant...here’s my take on it.
The question is more likely setting the stage to say laws can’t be interpreted differently at will. If they can be read that way then the law isn’t clear and must be reworked. Either it’s unconstitutional or they stay the ruling pending congress fixing it within 6 months. This allows subsidies to stay in place this year but then come 1 Jan 2016...Obamacare is gone.
Well it’s gone until Boehner and McConnell pass a fix to it. They could use this as an opportunity to get rid of it, but instead they will tweak it to pay off their cronies and give away more freebies.
I’m inclined to agree with you. If each President can interpret laws however he sees fit, even in a way that completely contradicts the explicit wording of the law, then the concepts of laws and being a nation of laws has no meaning.
However given how Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel with contrived and convoluted reasoning to uphold Obamacare, it’s impossible to trust him on the matter and the conclusion must be that he’s looking for an out.