That is exactly what the CJ is saying and that's the same thing he said the first time around.
Its not the Courts place to toss an entire statute unless there is a compelling reason to do so...that's called judicial restraint.
It's clearly the majority of the SC’s view that if this needs to be fixed then the Congress must fix it.
I know such a decision sorely pains our do nothing poll driven in it for themselves politicians but that's what they have to do if they want to change the statute. The Roberts Court is not going to bail them out .... and rightfully so in my opinion.
I apologize for not replying earlier but old folks have to get some sleep.
My entire objection is that, while the Chief Justice talks about judicial restraint, he did exactly the opposite. The law as enacted by congress provided only for subsudies in cases where policies were issued through “state” exchanges. The Executive Branch changed that to define “federal” exchanges as eligible and the court decision upheld the executive change.
The plantiffs in this case did not ask the court to toss the entire statute or even a part of it. Quite to the contrary, they asked the court to uphold the statute exactly as written by congress. To expect Congress to enact a new law specifying that they really intended the law to say exactly what it said would be standing the whole constitutional construct on it’s head.
The Court upheld the Executive Branch in it regulatory expansion of subsidies to federal exchanges alhough the statute enacted by Congress only provided such subsidies in state exchanges. The Chief Justice based his decision on the idea that Congress intended good results from the law but since enforcement as written would result in bad results the Executive was justified in going beyond the written word. That is the exact opposite of judicial restraint.