On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the states’ lawsuit against ObamaCare. If the court, as it should, strikes down the entire law, friends of the Constitution will have reason to celebrate.
They may, however, want to keep some of their champagne in reserve, for while all the provisions of the law would then be null and void at the federal level, the effects of those that have already been implemented may not easily be undone, according to the Washington Post.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the ongoing saga of ObamaCare. In February 2011 Dr. Lloyd M. Krieger argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that “the law has already yielded profound, destructive changes that will not be undone by repeal or defunding alone.”
Similarly, and even more pointedly, U.S. District Judge Roger K. Vinson — whose decision overturning the whole of ObamaCare, which the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in part, is the case the Supreme Court will be hearing this week — observed when he reluctantly granted the Obama administration a stay of his decision pending appeal:
Reversing what is presently in effect (and what will be put into effect in the future) may prove enormously difficult. Indeed, one could argue that was the entire point in front-loading certain of the Act’s provisions in the first place. It could also be argued that the Executive Branch seeks to continue the implementation, in part, for the very reason that the implemented provisions will be hard to undo once they are fully in place.
Click here to read the entire article.