Obamacare is an unjust law, and as such is not really a valid law. More on that below.
My take on the SCOTUS vote that will probably be announced today (deciding on two issues - the Obamacare mandate and Obamacare itself):
4 in favor: the four Socialist amigos will have decided as a block (kind of like a SCOTUS stronghold).
3 against: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (our freedom-loving, Constitution-loving Justices).
Unfortunately, that means only one of the remaining two is needed to decide in favor of Obamacare.
2 uncertain: Kennedy (as usual) and Roberts (suprisingly).
The Kennedy vote depends which side of the bed he rose up the day of the decision. If for some reason Kennedy has voted against both issues, then we still may have a Roberts problem, because he is apparently loathe to overturn the legislature.
However, if SCOTUS blows it, the game isn’t over. The states can and must do as Idaho did: nullify Obamacare and exempt its citizens from its mandates.
What would justify nullifying Obamacare? It’s about what we call "law." The highest Law of the Land of course is the U.S. Constitution which trumps any other law that violates it. I'm sure you know this, but it's probably worth saying that in this sense, this "solid four" (or "socialist four") is for overturning the Law of the Land in favor of said "laws" like Obamacare that helps create a Socialist state. Because Obamacare is illegal (outside U.S. Constitutional bounds) and unjust (wrongly interfering with individual liberty) it is, therefore, as Augustine and Blackstone say below, NO LAW.
More on this below if interested from the Philosophy of Law:
[T]he Overlap Thesis underlies the classical naturalism of Aquinas and Blackstone. As Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original" (1979, p. 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of classical naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law. On this view, to paraphrase Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all. http://www.threes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1409:philosophy-of-law&catid=75:philosophy&Itemid=60.
They can opt put until a new EO after obozo’s triumphant re-election forces them to join (or be a FOP, friend of peeelosi, and get awaiver)
Some say that Roberts is saying enough already with dragging courts into the political arena -- yes, I know that too damn few federal judges would dare do this to a liberal.
I recall the Warren court.. and sociological jurisprudence that ruled the day of the Civil Rights Revolution when there were 200 million "SCOTUS justices" judging the Constitutionality of sending all power to federal employees in Washington, D.C. -- and deleting the Tenth Amendment; in fact, defending the Tenth Amendment was accepted as proof that you were a racist.
If we fail to keep control of the House, take control of the Senate, and take the White House then it is over.
(He starting to attack his conservative competitors.. if it keeps up I am off to Groucho's.)