SC says Obamacare mandate is a tax. But in that case...

A commenter at Ace's place saw an interesting angle on the ruling about Obozocare:

The waivers that Obama granted--If [Obamacare] is a tax, those waivers aren't worth the paper they were written on, [because that] would mean that the Executive could GRANT Bills of Attainder, which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.... So Obama's waivers are shit.

I like the approach. However, the only way to make this little gotcha bite Obozo's supporters if you could get Obama's waivers declared illegal. And to do that, someone must sue the government.

No beneficiary of the waivers would do that. And (are you sitting down?) I'll bet you anything that the courts would rule that no conservative or other person who *didn't* benefit has the legal standing to sue, either.

I sense you're skeptical. But after the courts got away with ruling that not a single American citizen had the standing to sue Obozo for not meeting the Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of president, what makes you think they'd be any more willing to grant standing to a suit against Obozocare?

On the other hand, a President Romney could use the Court's finding that the mandate is actually a tax (and thus can't be applied selectively) to issue an executive order rescinding the Obozo waivers. Faced with being screwed like the rest of us, it's likely that many union members would be more willing to support repealing the whole thing.