Supreme Court considers judicial activism?

The Obama-care law, as written, is 2,700 pages long and literally nobody important has read it, not the lawmakers who stupidly passed it and not the Supreme Court judges who're going to rule on it. The lynch-pin for the whole health care house of cards is the individual mandate, which is clearly unconstitutional. But the judges seem to be hinting that they might consider partially allowing other parts of the law to stand, having given weight to the consequences of striking it down.

Should the Supreme Court ever consider the consequences of their actions, or just rule up or down on the constitutionality of a law? Parsing the health care law is equal to the court deciding for itself what it thinks is good law and expands dramatically the role of the judicial branch in law making. In fact, the judicial branch has NO role in law making, only in ruling on the constitutionality of that law after it's passed.

Judicial activism is bad because it blurs the lines between the proper and respective roles of the three branches of government. Let's hope they decide to rule "Yea" or "Nay" on the entire health care law and let the chips fall where they may. That's how the Constitution was written.