State attorney general doesn't believe rule of law is an important thing

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.