Actually from reading the opinion Robert’s makes it quite clear that in his view should the Court adopt the reading of ACA claimed by the Plaintiff’s then the law would be unworkable. He writes its illogical to assume the Congress would pass a law that is unworkable on its face. (He no doubt gives the current Congress to much credit)
Again he is not going to do the work of the legislative branch in his Court. The GOP can bring suit after suit and pay lawyers and give those opposing the law false hope but they will all be DOA.
The statute will be changed in Congress not in the Courts.
The old phrase “We don’t know what we don’t know” is applicable here. Since the Executive changed the provision relating to subsidies before the law was even implemented, we will never know whether it was workable or not. He did not hold that the law as written was illegal but rather held that it was unworkable. By substituting his political judgment on what is workable for that of the legislative body that wrote the law, he engaged in the worst kind of judicial activatism. It is not required that Congress be wise or even sane, just that they adhere to the constitution.
Just as an example, if a law was enacted with the stated intent to balance the federal budget and in that law included a provision for a 98% tax on all individual or business income over $5000 per year, would it be appropriate for the Executive to lower that tax rate to 20% based on the conclusion that a 98% rate was unworkable? Would the Chief Justice use the same logic to uphold the Executive action.