Don't like the Supreme Court ruling? Pressure Congress to do their jobs well and not write ambiguous laws. Problem solved.
Sure, but the details are important. Let's look at a hypothetical case. Suppose we need a law to protect watersheds from a certain chemical pollutant, let's call it X-123. In order to write this law we will need to elect an expert on watersheds and X-123 to Congress so that they can write the law in a way that is unambiguous and addresses the issues.
Let's examine why this is not feasible. Firstly, a single expert on watersheds and X-123 may not exist. These are complex topics which may require multiple experts to fully understand the issues. Secondly, after this law is written the experts are no longer needed. Congress would need very short turnover times otherwise it will take forever get laws written. Thirdly, our knowledge of watersheds and X-123 is expanding so the laws would need to be re-written every time there was a scientific publication on these topics. Finally, although this is not a problem per se, it defies common sense for Congress to vote on a law that is so complex that only experts can understand it. What would even be the point of having a vote?
Considering the above it is clear that we need experts to craft the regulations, which are not subject to a vote, and the experts need to work together so they can pool their knowledge, and this is an ongoing effort, and they need to be answerable to voters. In short, we need regulatory agencies staffed by experts who are appointed by voters. And, the regulations they create need to be enforced with the same level of attention applied to laws.
This Supreme Court ruling dismantles a key part of legislature without offering an alternative. It is a bad ruling.