“Roberts took the view that Congress intended that people have access to subsidies”
Isn’t that a tricky statement since Congress operates to express its intent through legislation. Could you possibly mean that the architects of Obamacare rather than Congress intended that people have access to subsidies?
I think it is correct that a majority of Congress intended that people have access to subsidies. But the method is also critically important, since there was clearly NOT a majority for single payer, or a federal option, or a national exchange. The state exchanges were the only way a majority could be cobbled together to pass the bill at all. In reading state exchanges as authorization for a national exchange, the Supreme Court is clearly contravening the will of the majority of Congress, and replacing it with a factional position that never commanded majority support.