If the court does overturn the mandate, it's going to be hard to know how to react. It's been more than 75 years since the Supreme Court overturned a piece of legislation as big as ACA, and I can't think of any example of the court overturning landmark legislation this big based on a principle as flimsy and manufactured as activity vs. inactivity. When the court overturned the NRA in 1935, it was a shock -- but it was also a unanimous decision and, despite FDR's pique, not really a surprising ruling given existing precedent. Overturning ACA would be a whole different kind of game changer. It would mean that the Supreme Court had officially entered an era where they were frankly willing to overturn liberal legislation just because they don't like it. Pile that on top of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United and you have a Supreme Court that's pretty explicitly chosen up sides in American electoral politics. This would be, in no uncertain terms, no longer business as usual. I read that and I think it's 2003 all over again. Back then, I couldn't believe that people whose opinions I respected were still struggling with the question of whether the Bush administration was making a wise move by going into Iraq; now, I can't believe that people I respect are still asking, "Could it be? Is it really conceivable that the Supreme Court is highly politicized?" Kevin Drum himself came around on the Iraq War a week