The 'Tooth and Nail' Doctrine | National Review Online

The 'Tooth and Nail' Doctrine | National Review Online: "If you’re interested in this, I would watch Abramski v United States extremely carefully. No two cases are the same, of course. But if the Roberts court proves to be generally sympathetic to arguments that the federal government must adhere closely to the text of hotly contested laws, Obamacare will once again be in trouble."



'via Blog this'



It would be nice if (1) Obamacare tanked the Democrats in 2014 and 2016, leading to a Republican president who appointed more originalist judges to replace Breyer and Ginsberg and (2) the law was eventually destroyed (and repealed) by it's own poor drafting because the subsidies are only available to the 13 states, and so not feasible.

Could Obamacare really be that good?