Liberals are already trying to discredit a possible unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court on Obamacare. See this editorial.

Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo informs us that if the justices respect precedent, “they’ll uphold the law. An ideology-driven move to strike down the mandate, a central component of the law, would mark a rare, swift departure from precedent.” Both Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler mock the law’s challengers for repeatedly pointing out that Obamacare’s individual mandate is “unprecedented” — in Winkler’s words, they “emphasize the novelty argument because they have little else on which to rely.”…

…Amid all this wishful thinking about the supposedly “settled science” of Obamacare’s constitutionality, you will not see the mockers cite the name of Judge Frank Hull. She is the Clinton appointee who co-authored a scathing decision by the 11th Circuit Court that rejected the government’s critical argument in defense of the individual mandate as “nowhere to be found in Supreme Court precedent…ad hoc, devoid of constitutional substance, incapable of judicial administration — and, consequently, illusory.” Later on, the court added: “We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers.” It’s hard to believe that, at this point, any serious person following the issue closely would dismiss the substance of the legal challenges to the health care law. It only makes sense as a pre-emptive attack by the law’s forlorn defenders, who hope to undermine an adverse decision in the court of public opinion.