It's true that Judge Kozinski in the 9th Circuit said he would not "apply a badly drafted piece of legislation to lead to [an] absurd result."
But the issue is not cut and dry.
Kozinski essentially acknowledged he was interpreting the statute in a manner possibly at odds with its very language. These courts get reversed all the time (over 70% of their cases) - and other circuits have read the law more narrowly.
And the government itself supports a narrow reading of the law.
OP's article is over the top. My point is, the "authorization" part of the law appears extremely broad and as the DOJ puts it: "the case law on this issue is muddy."