The Court, and Roberts,
did rule on the constitutionality of the law.
Roberts himself said the law was constitutional. He didn't say it was good law, just constitutional, and if the voters didn't like it, they had the power to change it by electing people who would change it.
That didn't happen, of course, but that's not to say the final word on this saga has been spoken. It obviously hasn't.
Disabling the law with one fell swoop is now unlikely. It will have to be done piecemeal, until the fabric that holds this law together becomes so frayed it will no longer functionally exist.
We're in this for the long haul, for better or worse. That's the way wars are.
CA....
I didn't say Roberts said the law was unconstitutional. I said his statement that the Supreme Court wasn't there to protect voters is BS. His job and the job of all nine justices is to protect voters from unconstitutional laws. The reason he ruled it constitutional was because he claimed it wasn't his job to get rid of bad laws and, as I said, that is BS, it is his job. Otherwise what the he** is the Supreme Court for? It is the third piece in the checks and balances that the founding fathers put into place. If the legislature passes an unconstitutional law and the President signs it, the only recourse is for the Supremes to rule it illegal. The fact that Roberts chose not to do so and to then tell is it wasn't his job to get rid of bad laws, after he twisted himself into a prezel to get his phony ruling, tells me he was either blackmailed or his brain suddenly died on him.
He certainly didn't do his job and used weasel words to try and justify his traitorous ruling.