Who will stop him?

The Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time The court have made their decision, now let them enforce it?

“ November 7, 2014 The Supreme Court is taking up another Obamacare case—one that could devastate the health care law's coverage expansion. The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states. If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with that logic, more than 4 million people—over half of all Obamacare enrollees—would lose their financial assistance and likely their insurance ... the biggest incentive for other people to get coverage would vanish. If the challenge succeeds, the consequences for Obamacare would be dramatic: Costs would skyrocket for millions of consumers, likely causing many of them to drop their coverage. The law's central goal—expanding health insurance to low-income Americans—would be severely set back, and at least some of the law's new insurance markets could become unsustainable. "This lawsuit reflects just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to strip millions of American families of tax credits that Congress intended for them to have," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Friday. Just the fact that the high court decided to take the case—and the timing of that decision—is a bad sign for the administration. The Justice Department had asked the Court to hold off on King while a similar case works its way through the appeals process. If the Court had gone along with that request, the administration's hand almost certainly would have been stronger once the issue finally reached the Supreme Court. "The Court's decision to grant King substantially increases the odds that the government will lose this case," wrote Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. [National Journal Continued] SCOTUS Blog [Symposium: Seven myths about King v. Burwell]  appears to be the basis for National Journal's story, for those interested in nuance.  I am not. The consensus appears to be that Obama will lose this case which will effectively plunge a knife into Obamacare's liver.  But that's not what this is about, this is: In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" If the court rules against the IRS and Obamacare, what's to stop Obama from issuing an Executive Order reinstating it?  I'm dead serious here.  If he will, for instance, as he threatens, and in defiance of congress, overturn immigration law with a "stroke of the pen," and grant amnesty to a few billion illegal immigrants, why stop there?  And who will stop him? ”

Use firing squads ...

“

Federal Judge: Use Firing Squads, Not Lethal Injections - Don't pretend killing isn't brutal, Kozinski says  Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals, calls the current system "inherently flawed" and says states that want to execute inmates should return to more "primitive—and foolproof—methods" of execution, NBC reports. "The guillotine is probably best but seems inconsistent with our national ethos," he writes. "And the electric chair, hanging, and the gas chamber are each subject to occasional mishaps. The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or 10 large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time." [Full] Actually, the Brits - when they were at the top of their game - probably had the best idea.

”