The rule of law does not allow a judge to uphold a law just because he agrees with its intent.
The void-for-vagueness rule protects you and me from "prosecutorial discretion" fueled by partisan animus. While the administration currently in power would (probably) enforce the law the way you would like, another administration could take the same law and beat you over the head with it.
The cure is not for judges to rewrite the statute or "blue pencil" it to remove offending verbiage. That is outside their jurisdiction. The cure is for the legislative branch to rewrite the law and clarify it.
So this is a separation of powers issue, a vagueness issue, AND a selective enforcement issue. The fact that the liberal justices voted the same way (probably for entirely different reasons) is irrelevant to whether Gorsuch voted correctly.
And the fact that you resort to over-the-top namecalling the first time a justice rules adversely to *your* opinion does not speak well of your knowledge of the law or the Constitution.
I believe that your opinion is legalistic. If a law is unfair, a disputed PORTION of s aid law may come before a court and be struck down. What Gorsuch did was put HIMSELF over the representatives of the people in making law by tossing it all aside. He is old enough to know not to side with the evil leftists. I suspect that this guy is another example of “growing” in Washington, just as Roberts and Kennedy often do!