Well, you had one conservative who MLive considered the be the most thoughtful it could find to work as a political columnist and who had to walk back comments that engaged in sedition (and who one of MLive's editors had just engaged in "Boys will be boys" behavior); and now you've got the state's attorney general who thinks that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling is something to be ignored if inconvenient.
(Schuette) basically said that the House should ignore the court decision in the hope that Mitt Romney would get elected in November and would then repeal what he sneeringly called “Obamacare.“
To quote him exactly, “Romney said he would repeal Obamacare and with that would go the health exchange and these mandates and so I think it would be wiser for policy leaders in this state to wait until November.” He seems to have forgotten that Congress, not the President, would have to change the law. But in any event, he was soon joined by Gail Haines, a Republican state representative who chairs the Health Policy Committee. While she has no legal background, she asserted that the Supreme Court decision was “based on semantics” and said she wasn’t in any hurry to recognize “this Obamacare tax.” Which apparently means a refusal to move forward on the health exchange.
This really is par for the course for Schuette. He ran the campaign against medical marijuana, telling the state it would create California-style dispensaries all over the state. When that did in fact happen, he convicned the Court of Appeals that the state's voters had never envisioned that the law would create California-style dispensaries and then stood hundreds of years of economic theory at the core of american capitialism on its head in arguing that government creates markets. So, it's not difficult to imagine that he would have no problem ignoringing a law merely because the U.S. Supreme Court said it was Constitutional.