Charles C.W. Cooke notices the Obama administration is looking at further delaying the implementation of Obamacare:

that law was passed through Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. If its opponents are expected to accept that Obamacare is the "law of the land" - and, too, that it can only be altered if they win an election and pass their coveted changes through the established order - shouldn't its supporters be expected to accept that rule, too?

This law, remember, was a tantalizingly close affair - haggled over, subject to extraordinary political conflict, and passed by the slimmest of partisan margins. The Democratic party "won," yes. But they won Obamacare-as-written - an overly broad and overly executive-friendly monstrosity to be sure, but not a carte blanche enabling act that affords the president the unassailable right to control the entire healthcare sector until such time as he is replaced by a Republican. Does the party know this? [ . . . ]

(T)here is only one thing worse for a free country than for it to have got the stage at which the executive branch is rewriting the laws with impunity, and that is for it to have got to the stage at which the executive branch is rewriting the laws with impunity while the media nonchalantly explains that it had to do that or it could have lost the next election.