This brings up an interesting question - if the SCOTUS rules in such a way that is exactly the opposite of the actual text of the Constitution, then how can that be considered constitutional?
If the SCOTUS cannot, in fact, give constitutionality to a law that defies the plain text of the Constitution, then this argument is moot, because ObamaCare IS in fact illegal.
If the SCOTUS ruling against the plain text of the Constitution makes constitutional what was unconstitutional before, then isn't that equivalent to amending the Constitution - thereby amending in an unconstitutional way that also renders the decision and the law unconstitutional?
Wow! I actually followed all that inside my brain and lived to tell about it. Agree.
“if SCOTUS rules in such a way that is exactly the opposite of what is the text of the Constitution, then how can that be considered constitutional?”
According to the other poster, SCOTUS is right “by definition.” So it cannot possibly make an unconstitutional ruling. Which begs the question what it means when SCOTUS reverses its own decisions.
Or are they above the rules of logic, too? Mutually exclusive rulings can both be right by the magic of SCOTUS.