The Supreme Court upheld two different cases, but with reasoning that most pundits missed. The rulings are telling within the intended purpose of the Supreme Court, but also in the conservative, partisan justices that dissented in both the Obamacare case and the gerrymandering case in Arizona. The spirit of the law is the constitutionally accepted course for official legislation. Currently, republicans and conservatives that cannot accept laws that were officially passed by legislatures at both the state and federal level are attempting to thwart these laws by utilizing small grammatical errors in very small portions of the written laws to effectively strike them down based on technicalities. The dissenting justices have all written briefs and opinions exalting the constitutionality involved in the spirit of the law concept.
This prevents grammatical and spelling errors from circumventing the legislative process by considering what the writers intended instead of what grammatical errors may make it seem. As Mann knows well, the entire Supreme Court respects the spirit of the law, and it is also why all legal minds were stunned when the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step to circumvent lower court rulings and hear the Obamacare case based on four words within the entire law which is thousands of pages long. The Arizona case was also based on a very small group of words within thousands of pages. Had the frivolity prevailed, 7 million people would have lost their healthcare, and millions would have lost their voting rights.