And in this case, he fixed bad legislation. He's inconsistent. He can afford to be. He's not elected, and there is zero probability of him being removed.
If you read his opinion, he is basically saying, correctly I’m afraid, that everything else written in the law intended to cover these people and that the wording was not so definitive in excluding the Federal exchange, to warrant dismantling the law.
I hate the law, but it was NOT going to be overturned on a technicality like this, no matter how much we would have liked to see it.