Some readers might find the title of my post confusing. Didn't the Supreme Court uphold Obamacare rather than strike it down?
Only if you operate with a wooden, binary view of lexical semantics according to which words have objective meanings. But twice now, Chump Justice John Roberts has taught us that legal language has no objective meaning.
Roberts and his allies on the bench have taught us that "tax" and "penalty" are synonyms. Who knew? "Established by the state" really means "not established by the state," or "established by the Federal government."
Therefore, I apply to the majority opinion the same semantic relativism which the majority opinion applies to statutory law.
Since, according to the hermeneutical principles of Chump Justice John Roberts, antonyms are synonyms, since the meaning of one word can be arbitrarily reassigned to another word, if I were a chief executive (i.e. president, governor, mayor), I'd commend the Supreme Court for striking down Obamacare, and proceed to dismantle it.