If SCOTUS is right then the supremacy clause triumphs.
If? If the SCOUTUS is right? The SCOTUS are the refs here -- they're right by definition. You can argue a SCOTUS decision all you want, but unless you're arguing it in front of the SCOTUS, it's moot. If there's a valid 10th Amendment challenge to Obamacare, then no actual constitutional lawyer has realized it. That suggests to me that there isn't one. And what power did Congress invent? They have the power to pass legislation and the power to tax; that's all they need (according to SCOTUS). A lot of people are possessed of a rather inflated understanding of the 10th Amendment. It doesn't apply here or someone credible would be trying to apply it.
But so is Colorado’s anti-prohibition stand or California’s antiimmigration law stance. Go call them embarrassing for a while.
I don't have to. Feds will continue to raid marijuana dispensaries in California and look for them to start raiding private homes in Colorado in the near future... and there's nothing California or Colorado can do about it.
“The SCOTUS are the refs here”
Assuming that’s true (though it isn’t), you act as if SCOTUS has never changed its mind. If ever it reverses a previous decision it was wrong either then or now. So, obviously, SCOTUS is not always right.
“they’re right by definition”
By the definition of what? The “supreme” part of their name? What about the definition of the word “sovereignty”?
“it’s moot”
Practically speaking, maybe. But only because most people think like you and have been tricked into thinking SCOTUS is the end all.
“If there’s a value 10th amendment challenge to Obamacare, then no actual constitutional lawyer has realized it”
What about the justices who voted to strike Obamacare, for instance? They may not have named it explicitly, but I guarantee they used its logic
By the way, I advised reading the 10th amendment to help you understand state nullification, mostly.
“what power did Congress invent?”
Most famously the power to tax directly insurance policy ownership status. Also probably pretty much everything else in the bill by pre-New Deal standards.
“They have the power to pass legislation”
Butt only in constitutionally appropriate manner (proper) and only pursuant to constitutional purposes (necessary).
“and the power to tax”
But not any old way they want. Not directly, unless it is an income tax or apportioned among the states according to population. Or if indirect, then uniform across the country. And not for any old purpose. Taxes must be raised to fund constitutional ends, meaning attendant to expressed powers, among which is not found regulation of not having insurance coverage.
“A lot of people are possessed of a rather inflated understanding of the 10th amendment”
Maybe your understanding is deflated. That is common. Along with the 9th it might as well have been erased by this point.