>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/opinion/overturning-obamacare-would-change-the-nature-of-the-supreme-court.html
>
>March madness, indeed.
>
>I usually agree with Linda, but I'd change the title.
>The republican party is at stake.
>If Scalia, Thomas, Alito, etc overturn this I can't see how anyone with a sound mind would vote for a republican who might appoint another one of these people.

Bill, I agree with one point, this is a pure mess and will certainly get worse if the plaintiff wins (they have a legitimate argument, and I'd give them a better than 50-50 chance)

But it is a pure mess that began with those who pushed for the law to begin with. Architecturally, this was always bad law, bad economics, and unconstitutional.

The author of this op-ed piece (Linda Greenhouse) misleads on several facts. First, specifically, it's the House that can originate taxes, not Congress in general. The Senate wrote the language for ACA. That's the fundamental basis for the ACA being unconstitutional. Second, while I agree it's going to be a debacle if several million lose their subsidies, that's still less than the number losing their plans through either the individual or employer mandates. Seems interesting she didn't bother to mention that. Third, the author is crying foul about the Supreme Court arguing a topic that is a front-line partisan war. This argument is just too naïve to be taken seriously. I can point to a half dozen cases in my lifetime alone where the Court agreed to hear a case where the plaintiffs were arguing a position that is surely more in line with Linda Greenhouse's views. So her crying foul is just pure hypocrisy.