I don’t argue that it is an either-or situation. But look at it this way: the total resources available to fight Obamacare amount to X dollars and Y hours of effort. We don’t know what the values of X and Y are, but we can reasonably assume that they are finite. My share of the X and Y will go to that area of endeavor which is most likely to produce results — which I believe to be the electoral process. I could be wrong — wouldn’t be the first time — but my evaluation of the court challenges is that they are highly unlikely to succeed. It would be unreasonable of me, given that evaluation, to put my share of the X and Y into court actions. Consider also that if the court cases are shot down prior to the elections in November, that may result in less support for good candidates at the polls. That’s not “defeatism.” More like “realism.”
That's just not the way it is. The elections will take place regardless of how big an issue Obamacare is in 2010. Making Obamacare a major election issue or not won't change the cost or the time spent on the elections. And there will be people to meet the legal expenses of court challenges, including the various states and many others.
The two efforts are not completing for the same dollars for support, or the time of the same people.
I think both paths can be taken.
The Judicial path can throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of the Bill.
And, like the McCain/Fiengold attack on free speech, it may have large portions of the Bill ruled unconstitutional.