The ACA is a giant pile of shit, even by other giant-pile-of-shit standards like, for example, ERISA. Striking down the ACA on con-law grounds would have been completely acceptable on the first go round and within the province of the role of the Court to interpret the constitution. But no honest person could conclude, based on the structure of the statute as a whole, that the intent of the Congress that passed this big stinking pile of shit was to exclude subsidies for the federal exchanges. To the extent Scalia claims otherwise, as Roberts pointed out with the cite below, he is just lying.
See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 549 (2012) (SCALIA Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, KENNEDY Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 570 "(Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.").