In his dissent on Friday (June 26, 2015), Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the two opinions were entirely consistent. “Under the Constitution,” he wrote, “judges have the power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” More here.
Right ... but he also (on on the same day) said "
"The context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase," Roberts wrote. More here:
So, in one minute he says they should not try to read things into the words (what it SHOULD say) and the next minute he says they should DEPART from the "natural reading." This guy has no guiding principles ... he just votes the way he thinks things ought to be (but claims he shouldn't do so.)