Is that what he is really saying? or is he simply pointing out that it is unrealistic for the SC to rule on the constitutionality of every aspect of the law given its complexity. I think he’s laying out the case that they should either strike down only the IM and await more cases challenging other parts, or strike it down in its entirety. Logically, the statement he made that even forming SC opinion on each and every aspect of the law connected to the IM is unrealistic leads to the conclusion that if any part is found unconstitutional, the entire law is void. I obviously hope that is the way it goes, as the intentional girth and complexity of legislation lately is sickening.
He's saying neither. The Court doesn't rule on constitutionality of issues not presented to it, and a challenge to the constitutionality of the rest of the Act isn't before the Court.legislative function of figuring out whether a bill missing a key component can continue to function. Not whether it remains constitutional, but whether it can function as Congress intended.
In other words, he's saying that to avoid acting as a legislature, they need to strike the whole thing down and let Congress draft whatever replacement they choose to draft, from scratch.